[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40016-40037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16966]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD782


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 2015 Arctic open-water 
season.

DATES: Effective July 1, 2015, through October 15, 2015.

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 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.

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].

[[Page 40017]]

Summary of Request

    On December 2, 2014, NMFS received an application from SAE for the 
taking of marine mammals incidental to a 3D ocean bottom node (OBN) 
seismic survey program in the Beaufort Sea. After receiving NMFS 
comments, SAE made revisions and updated its IHA application on 
December 5, 2014, January 21, 2015, January 29, 2015, and again on 
February 16, 2015. In addition, NMFS received the marine mammal 
mitigation and monitoring plan (4MP) from SAE on December 2, 2014, with 
an updated version on January 29, 2015. NMFS determined that the 
application and the 4MP were adequate and complete on February 17, 
2015.
    SAE proposes to conduct 3D OBN seismic surveys in the state and 
federal waters of the U.S. Beaufort Sea during the 2015 Arctic open-
water season. The proposed activity would occur between July 1 and 
October 15, 2015. The actual seismic survey is expected to take 
approximately 70 days, dependent on weather. The following specific 
aspects of the proposed activities are likely to result in the take of 
marine mammals: Seismic airgun operations and associated navigation 
sonar and vessel movements. Takes, by Level A and/or Level B 
Harassments, of individuals of six species of marine mammals are 
anticipated to result from the specified activity.
    SAE also conducted OBN seismic surveys in the Beaufort Sea in the 
2014 Arctic open-water season (79 FR 51963; September 2, 2014).
    Detailed descriptions of SAE's 3D OBN seismic survey program are 
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (80 FR 
20084; April 14, 2015). 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 April 14, 2015 (80 FR 20084). 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 from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission). All comments are 
addressed in this section of the Federal Register notice.
    Comment 1: The Commission points out that information regarding the 
specific areas that would be surveyed by SAE, or specific times of year 
for the survey, was not available as part of the proposed incidental 
harassment authorization. The Commission recommends that, prior to 
issuing the IHA, NMFS require SAE to determine what areas it will 
survey and when, in order to ensure that the proposed survey area and 
associated numbers of takes are consistent with what NMFS plans to 
authorize and, if they are not, amend the numbers of takes accordingly.
    Response: Although a specific survey area for SAE's proposed 3D OBN 
seismic survey has not been determined, and probably will be remain 
confidential until the beginning of the survey, the potential area is 
known and all scenarios of the proposed survey have been considered and 
evaluated for impact assessment. As described in the Federal Register 
notice (80 FR 20084; April 14, 2015) for the proposed IHA, the worst-
case scenario related to location (with the highest animal density) is 
taken into consideration for the analysis of the marine mammal impacts.
    Comment 2: The Commission points out that the total survey area for 
the project, 777 km\2\, appears low since it equates to roughly four 
times the size of each recording patch (192 km\2\). The Commission 
further notes that SAE has indicated that each patch would take about 
four days to shoot, which means that if the proposed total survey are 
of 777 km\2\ is indeed accurate, SAE would be able to shoot that area 
within 16 days instead of 49 days.
    Response: The Commission has confused shot patch size (192 km\2\) 
and recording patch size (19.4 km\2\). The shot patches greatly overlap 
with one another, while the recorder patches do not. Considering the 
tremendous overlap in shot area between adjacent patches, no more than 
777 km\2\ will be shot under this authorization, although many areas 
will be shot more than once. It actually would take much longer than 49 
days if SAE wanted to completely survey the entire777 km\2\.
    Comment 3: The Commission states that it is concerned that the 
method used by SAE and NMFS to estimate numbers of takes is based on 
the total ensonified area rather than the area expected to be 
ensonified on a daily basis, as is standard for a moving sound source. 
The Commission recommends that NMFS use the method of area times 
density times the number of survey days to estimate the total number of 
Level A and B harassment takes for each of the marine mammal species 
expected to be in the project area.
    Response: Despite that in most cases monitoring reports from 3D 
seismic surveys showed that take numbers, based on observation with 
adjustment to count for animals missed, are usually under or closely 
reflect the take estimates using a simple method of multiplying the 
total ensonified area by animal density, NMFS recognizes that such 
method has its limitation of not considering animal movement into the 
area on different days. The Commission's recommended method of area 
times density times the number of survey days provides an appropriate 
estimated of the instances of take, but often overestimates the number 
of individuals taken, because in many circumstances individual animals 
would be repeatedly taken. Except in rare cases when animals are 
migrating through the ensonified area, the ``instances'' of take 
generated by this method are higher than the individuals taken, given 
that in many cases marine mammals are using local habitat for multiple 
days and will be taken multiple times--and therefore, additional work 
may be needed to identify the likely numbers individuals taken to 
compare to the population size. NMFS is exploring new methodologies to 
calculate take estimates by accounting for daily ensonified area, days 
of the project, as well as the averaged rates of animal moving in/out 
of the survey area, prior monitoring report data, and other applicable 
information, if available. In the case of SAE's 3D OBN seismic survey, 
NMFS recalculated take numbers using daily ensonified area multiplied 
by project days multiplied by animal density and then adjusted the 
turnover rates based on species movement patterns and home ranges. A 
detailed description of the take estimates and the methodology are 
provided in section ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' below.
    Comment 4: The Commission notes that NMFS is proposing to authorize 
the incidental taking of marine mammals by Level A harassment under 
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, instead of through regulations under 
section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. The Commission states that 
authorizing Level A harassment under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 
would be inconsistent with the intent of the MMPA. The Commission 
recommends that NMFS (1) develop criteria for determining when taking 
by Level A harassment should be authorized (i.e., types of sound 
sources, project locations, species, effectiveness of mitigation 
measures) and (2) authorize any such takes through regulation under

[[Page 40018]]

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and a letter of authorization rather than 
through an incidental harassment authorization. The Commission further 
states that it would welcome an opportunity to discuss the development 
of such criteria with NMFS.
    Response: NMFS does not agree with the Commission's statement that 
Level A harassment cannot be authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA. The legal requirements and underlying analysis for the 
issuance of a take authorization (i.e., an IHA) in this particular case 
do not require the issuance of regulations and a letter of 
authorization. In order to issue an authorization pursuant to section 
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must determine that the taking by 
harassment (Level A and Level B) of small numbers of marine mammal 
species or stocks will have a negligible impact on affected species or 
stocks, and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of affected species or stocks for taking for subsistence 
uses. Potential impact on marine mammals incidental to SAE's 3D seismic 
survey would be limited to harassments only. Therefore, the issuance of 
an IHA to SAE under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA meets the legal 
requirements stated above. However, if there were a potential for 
serious injury or mortality, NMFS could not issue an IHA. Instead, any 
incidental take authorization would need to be processed under section 
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
    As described here and in the Federal Register notice (80 FR 20084; 
April 14, 2015) for the proposed IHA, permanent hearing threshold shift 
(PTS) is considered to be injury (Level A Harassment), not serious 
injury or mortality. Therefore, it is appropriate to issue an 
incidental take authorization under 101(a)(5)(D), as we have made the 
necessary findings (described elsewhere in this document) under that 
section of the MMPA.
    NMFS agrees with the Commission that criteria for determining when 
taking by Level A harassment should be authorized (i.e., types of sound 
sources, project locations, species, effectiveness of mitigation 
measures) will enhance the analysis of marine mammal incidental takes 
under MMPA, and appreciates the Commission's willingness to be involved 
in such a process.
    Comment 5: The Commission notes that NMFS has proposed that SAE 
conduct in-situ sound source measurements for the 1,240-in\3\ airgun 
array to ensure accurate characterization of the Level A and B 
harassment zones for that sound source. The Commission recommends that 
NMFS verify that any adjustments to the size of the Level A and/or B 
harassment zones, based on in-situ measurements, are accurate before 
such adjustments are made.
    Response: SAE is required to conduct in-situ sound source 
measurements for the 1,240-in\3\ airgun array before the commencement 
of its 3D seismic surveys. The Commission did not specify a method for 
how the in-situ measurements should be verified. Nevertheless, NMFS 
will evaluate the empirically measured exclusion zone and zone of 
influence based on comparable measurements of similar airguns in 
similar environment before agreeing that SAE should adopt the measured 
zones for monitoring and mitigation measures.
    Comment 6: The Commission recommends that NMFS require that SAE 
refrain from initiating or cease seismic activities if an aggregation 
of bowhead 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 Level B 
harassment Zone.
    Response: NMFS discussed the Commission's recommendation with SAE 
and SAE agrees to refrain from initiating or to cease seismic 
activities if an aggregation of bowhead 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 Level B harassment Zone.
    Comment 7: The Commission recommends that NMFS encourage SAE to 
coordinate with other operators and researchers who may be conducting 
aerial surveys with the goal that information collected during those 
surveys will assist SAE in monitoring pinnipeds use of haul-out sites 
before, during, and after SAE's planned seismic survey.
    Response: NMFS discussed the Commission's recommendation with SAE 
and encouraged SAE to coordinate with other operations and researchers 
who may be conducting aerial surveys. SAE responded that they attempted 
to coordinate with other companies last year for spotted seal 
monitoring, but none agreed to cooperate. In addition, at this point it 
is unclear whether any other companies in the Beaufort Sea may be 
conducting pinnipeds haul-out aerial surveys in the 2015 open-water 
season. Nevertheless, NMFS encourages SAE again to seek cooperation 
with other companies who may be conducting aerial surveys with the goal 
that information collected during those surveys will assist SAE in 
monitoring pinnipeds use of haul-out sites before, during, and after 
SAE's planned seismic survey.
    Comment 8: The Commission recommends that NMFS incorporate the 
peer-review panel's recommendations into the final authorization and, 
if necessary, consult with personnel directly associated with 
implementing passive acoustic monitoring to ensure that the monitoring 
objectives are able to be met.
    Response: NMFS conducted a peer review process to evaluate SAE's 
monitoring plan in early March 2015 in Anchorage, AK. The peer review 
panel submitted its report to NMFS in early April and provided 
recommendations to SAE. NMFS worked with SAE extensively on these 
recommendations. As a result, NMFS requires and SAE agrees to implement 
the following recommendations from the peer-review panel: (1) 
Conducting sound source verification (SSV) if SAE plans to use the 
1,240 in\3\ airgun array for seismic survey; (2) including an 
additional mitigation vessel for marine mammal monitoring if SAE plans 
to use the 1,240 in\3\ airgun array; (3) deploying more acoustic 
sensors than the 2014 season for passive acoustic monitoring; (4) 
testing a new mooring design with NMFS National Marine Mammal 
Laboratory for micro Marine Autonomous Recording System (microMARS) to 
be deployed in shallow water; (5) including sightability curves in the 
90-day report; and (6) making monitoring data available for valid 
scientific reasons and request.
    In addition, though not solicited as part of the independent peer 
review of the monitoring, the peer-review panel also provided a number 
of mitigation measures which, upon discussion with SAE, the company 
agreed to limit the mitigation airgun shot interval to 1 shot per 
minute. However, SAE could not agree to the ramp up of 1 airgun per 5 
minutes, as opposed to standard protocol of doubling the number of 
airguns every five minutes. SAE states that the recommended ramp up 
protocol is cost prohibitive.
    A detailed description of peer-review process, peer-review 
recommendations, and NMFS' discussion with SAE regarding implementation 
of the recommendations is provided in ``Monitoring Plan Peer Review'' 
section below.

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

[[Page 40019]]

under NMFS jurisdiction with confirmed or possible occurrence in the 
proposed project area.

                             Table 1--Marine Mammal Species With Confirmed or Possible Occurrence in the Seismic Survey Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Common name            Scientific name           Status                Occurrence           Seasonality          Range           Abundance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Odontocetes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beluga whale (Beaufort Sea      Delphinapterus     -.....................  Common................  Mostly spring     Mostly Beaufort              39,258
 stock).                         leucas.                                                            and fall with     Sea.
                                                                                                    some in summer.
Beluga whale (eastern Chukchi   --...............  -.....................  Common................  Mostly spring     Mostly Chukchi                3,710
 Sea stock).                                                                                        and fall with     Sea.
                                                                                                    some in summer.
Killer whale **...............  Orcinus orca.....  -.....................  Occasional/             Mostly summer     California to                   552
                                                                            Extralimital.           and early fall.   Alaska.
Harbor porpoise **............  Phocoena phocoena  -.....................  Occasional/             Mostly summer     California to                48,215
                                                                            Extralimital.           and early fall.   Alaska.
Narwhal **....................  Monodon monoceros  -.....................  ......................  ................  ................             45,358
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Mysticetes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale *...............  Balaena            Endangered; Depleted..  Common................  Mostly spring     Russia to Canada             19,534
                                 mysticetus.                                                        and fall with
                                                                                                    some in summer.
Gray whale....................  Eschrichtius       -.....................  Somewhat common.......  Mostly summer...  Mexico to the                19,126
                                 robustus.                                                                            U.S. Arctic
                                                                                                                      Ocean.
Minke whale **................  Balaenoptera       -.....................  ......................  ................  ................          810-1,003
                                 acutorostrata.
Humpback whale * ** (Central    Megaptera          Endangered; Depleted..  ......................  ................  ................             21,063
 North Pacific stock).           novaeangliae.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Pinnipeds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bearded seal (Beringia          Erigathus          Candidate.............  Common................  Spring and        Bering, Chukchi,            155,000
 distinct population segment).   barbatus.                                                          summer.           and Beaufort
                                                                                                                      Seas.
Ringed seal * (Arctic stock)..  Phoca hispida....  Threatened; Depleted..  Common................  Year round......  Bering, Chukchi,            300,000
                                                                                                                      and Beaufort
                                                                                                                      Seas.
Spotted seal..................  Phoca largha.....  -.....................  Common................  Summer..........  Japan to U.S.               141,479
                                                                                                                      Arctic Ocean.
Ribbon seal **................  Histriophoca       Species of concern....  Occasional............  Summer..........  Russia to U.S.               49,000
                                 fasciata.                                                                            Arctic Ocean.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Species or stocks listed under the Endangered Species Act.
** Species are so rarely sighted in the proposed 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 Angliss, 2013). These three species are not 
considered further in this proposed IHA notice. Both the walrus and the

[[Page 40020]]

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 Notice of Proposed IHA.
    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 (80 FR 20084; April 14, 2015). 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 effects 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 (80 FR 20084; April 14, 2015). 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).
    Besides the mitigation measures that were proposed in the Federal 
Register notice (80 FR 20084; March 14, 2015), NMFS included two 
additional measures that require SAE (1) refrain from initiating or 
cease seismic activities if an aggregation of bowhead 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 Level B harassment zone; and (2) 
operate a mitigation airgun at a rate of 1 shot per minute. A detailed 
discussion of the mitigation measures are provided below.

(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 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 impulse noise.
    In 2014, Heath et al. (2014) conducted a sound source verification 
(SSV) of the very same 620-in\3\ array SAE plans to use in 2015. The 
SSV was conducted in generally the same survey area of SAE's planned 
2015 work. They empirically determined that the distances to the 190, 
180, and 160 dB isopleths for sound pressure levels emanating from the 
620-in\3\ array was 195, 635, and 1,820 m, respectively (Table 3). 
Heath et al. (2014) also measured sound pressure levels from an active 
10-in\3\ gun during SAE's 2014 Beaufort operations and found noise 
levels exceeding 190 dB extended out 54 m, exceeding 180 dB out to 188 
m, and exceeding 160 dB out to 1,050 m (Table 2).
    Sound source studies have not been done for the 1,240-in\3\ array; 
however, Austin and Warner (2013) conducted a sound source verification 
of a 1,200-in\3\ array operated by SAE in Cook Inlet found the radius 
to the 190 dB isopleth to be 250 m, to the 180 dB isopleth to be 910 m, 
and to the 160 dB isopleth to be 5,200 m. These are the distance values 
SAE intends to use before the SSV for the 1,240 in\3\ airgun arrays are 
obtained before the survey. If SAE plans to use the 1,240 in\3\ airgun 
arrays, SSV of these zones will be empirically measured before the 2015 
open-water seismic survey for monitoring and mitigation measures.

     Table 2--Summary of Airgun Array Source Levels and Proposed 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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10..............................................             195              54             188           1,050
620.............................................             218             195             635           1,820
1,240 *.........................................             224             250             910           5,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Denotes modelled source level that need to be empirically measured before the seismic survey.


[[Page 40021]]

(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;
    [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, Protected Species 
Observers (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 exclusion 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.
No Seismic Survey With Presence of Aggregation of Whales
    SAE shall refrain from initiating or cease seismic activities if an 
aggregation of bowhead 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 Level B harassment Zone.
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

[[Page 40022]]

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).
    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 these mitigation measures, NMFS has 
determined that the proposed 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. Mitigation 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.
    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 2015 by conducting vessel-based monitoring and 
passive acoustic monitoring to document marine mammal presence and 
distribution in the vicinity of the survey area.
    Visual monitoring by 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

[[Page 40023]]

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.
    Besides the monitoring measures that were proposed in the Federal 
Register notice (80 FR 20084; March 14, 2015), NMFS included several 
additional measures based on the Commission and peer-review 
recommendations. These additional monitoring measures include: (1) NMFS 
evaluation of empirically measured exclusion zones and zone of 
influence before they are adopted; (2) conducting SSV if SAE plans to 
use the 1,240 in\3\ airgun array for seismic survey; (3) including an 
additional mitigation vessel for marine mammal monitoring if SAE plans 
to use the 1,240 in\3\ airgun array; (4) deploying more acoustic 
sensors than the 2014 season for passive acoustic monitoring; and (5) 
testing a new mooring design with NMFS National Marine Mammal 
Laboratory for microMARS to be deployed in shallow water.
    Details of the monitoring measures are described below.

Visual-Based 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 both survey vessels 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 
number of ``takes'' as stipulated in the IHA.
(1) PSOs
    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 total of 2 PSOs will be required onboard each survey vessel to 
meet the following criteria:
     100% monitoring coverage during all periods of survey 
operations in daylight;
     At least two PSOs conducting vessel-based visual 
monitoring from both vessels during all time;
     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) PSO Role and Responsibilities
    When onboard the seismic and support vessels, there are three major 
parts to the PSO position:
     Observe and record sensitive wildlife species;
     Ensure mitigation procedures are followed accordingly; and
     Follow monitoring and data collection procedures.
    The main roles of the PSO and the monitoring program are to ensure 
compliance with requirements set in place by NMFS to ensure that 
disturbance of marine mammals is minimized, and potential effects on 
marine mammals are documented. The PSOs will implement the monitoring 
and mitigation measures specified in the IHA. The primary purposes of 
the PSOs on board of the vessels are:
     Mitigation: Implement mitigation clearing and ramp up 
measures, observe for and detect marine mammals within, or about to 
enter the applicable safety zone and implement necessary shut down, 
power down and speed/course alteration mitigation procedures when 
applicable. Advise marine crew of mitigation procedures.
     Monitoring: Observe for marine mammals and determine 
numbers of marine mammals exposed to sound pulses and their reactions 
(where applicable) and document those as required.
(3) 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- or 3-day training and refresher session on 
marine mammal monitoring, to be conducted shortly before the 
anticipated start of the 2015 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.
(4) Marine Mammal Observer Protocol
    Source vessels will employ PSOs to identify marine mammals during 
all hours of airgun operations. To better observe the exclusion zone, a 
lead PSO, one or two PSOs, and an Inupiaq communicator will be on the 
primary source vessel and two PSOs will be stationed aboard the 
secondary source vessel. (The total number of observers is limited by 
available berthing space aboard the vessels.) The three to four total 
observers aboard the primary source vessel will allow two observers 
simultaneously on watch during daylight hours.
    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

[[Page 40024]]

(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 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).
(5) Dedicated Monitoring Vessel
    If SAE decides to use the 1,240 in\3\ airgun array, an additional 
dedicated visual monitoring vessel will be employed to assist marine 
mammal monitoring due to the larger exclusion zones and zone of 
influence from this larger airgun array. A minimum of 2 PSOs will be 
positioned on this dedicated monitoring vessel.
(6) 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.

Acoustic Monitoring

(1) Sound Source Measurements
    Since the same airgun array of 620 in\3\ and a single mitigation 
airgun of 10 in\3\ to be used were empirically measured in the 
generally same seismic survey vicinity in 2014 (Heath 2014), NMFS does 
not think additional SSV tests for this array and a single airgun are 
necessary for the 2015 seismic survey. However, if SAE decides to use 
the 1,240 in\3\ airgun arrays for deeper water, SSV on these arrays is 
required before the commencement of the surveys. Results of the 
acoustic characterization and SSV will be used to establish the 190 dB, 
180 dB, 170 dB, and 160 dB isopleths for the 1,240 in\3\ airgun arrays.
    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.
    NMFS will evaluate the empirically measured exclusion zones and 
zone of influence from the 1,240 in\3\ before they are formally 
established for mitigation and monitoring measures.
(2) Passive Acoustic Monitoring
    SAE will conduct Passive Acoustical Monitoring (PAM) using 
microMARS. These sensors will be deployed on the seabed and will record 
continuously at 64 kHz sample rate and 16-bit samples. The recorders 
will be calibrated and their mooring designs tested prior to 
deployment.

PAM Deployment

    Passive acoustic monitoring package will be deployed at the four 
corners of SAE's survey site. Each PAM package will include two 
microMARS units coupled with an ARC-1 release device, a float and a 
retrievable mooring. Deploying two microMARS at each monitoring 
location will allow redundancy in the system to reduce the likelihood 
of failures and/or data loss.
    PAM will be deployed before the SAE's proposed 3D seismic survey 
and remain at the study site during the entire survey period.

Data Analysis

    Acoustic data will be analyzed for two frequency bands, low (below 
2 kHz for baleen whales and low-frequency noise) and high (2 kHz-32 kHz 
for beluga whales and high-frequency noise). This will allow sounds 
produced by different species and anthropogenic sources to be reviewed 
and analyzed in greater detail. Specialized acoustic review and 
analysis software, Trition will be used to create long-term spectral 
averages (LTSAs) for all acoustic files downloaded from the recorders.
    Once LTSAs of all the acoustic data have been created and 
preliminarily reviewed, experienced bioacoustic data analysts will 
perform a detailed review of the data. Analysts will log the time of 
occurrence of all biological sounds, seismic source events (if 
audible), and other relevant acoustic signals (e.g. ships, small boats, 
and other noise events). Combined event log data will then be organized 
into tables to provide summaries including (1) the number and type of 
acoustic events; (2) the number of days each event occurred at each 
site; and (3) event durations for each deployment and site. Graphs of 
daily event occurrence will be made for each identified marine mammal 
species that have sufficient data to plot. Graphs of the percentage of 
time for which signals from each species were detected with respect to 
total recording time at each site will be plotted by species.
    Noise analysis will be performed on all recorded acoustic data. 
Sound levels will be measured for full and octave frequency bands. This 
analysis will be conducted using automated algorithms that measure 
root-mean-square (RMS) sound pressure level (SPL) each octave bands. 
These results will be averaged both hourly and daily to provide a 
synoptic representation of the ambient noise levels present at each 
location for each of the different frequency bands measured.

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 
4MP for the proposed 3D seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea. The panel 
met in early March 2015, and provided comments and recommendations to 
NMFS in April 2015. The full panel report can be viewed on the Internet 
at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm.

[[Page 40025]]

    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 peer-review panel report contains recommendations that the 
panel members felt were applicable to the SAE' monitoring plans. The 
peer-review panel believed that the objectives for both vessel-based 
and passive acoustic monitoring were appropriate. The panel also agreed 
that the objectives of real-time mitigation of potential disturbance of 
marine mammals would be mostly met through visual monitoring. However, 
there are some limitations associated with PSOs' ability to monitor the 
entire safety radii at all times. Specific panel recommendations are 
provided below.
    (1) If SAE decides to use the larger airgun array (i.e., the 1,240 
in\3\ array), SAE should conduct sound source verification;
    (2) SAE should have an additional observer on the secondary source 
vessel such that at least two observers are on watch during all 
daylight hours;
    (3) If SAE uses the 1,240 in\3\ airgun array and the measured 
safety radii (exclusion zones) in the Beaufort Sea are similar to the 
measurement done in Cook Inlet (250 m for 190 dB and 910 m for 180 dB), 
SAE should have a dedicated scout (monitoring) vessel with at least 2 
PSOs to monitor the 180 dB exclusion zone (910 m);
    (4) If the seismic surveys are offshore, more acoustic sensors are 
needed at more locations than what is presented by SAE at the peer-
review meeting (one sensor at each of the four corners);
    (5) microMARS used for PAM should be deployed well before the 
seismic surveys begin in order to collect baseline data before all the 
vessels are operative in the area and the airgun arrays begin 
operating;
    (6) SAE should develop a more compact mooring design for microMARS 
that are deployed in shallow waters, particularly because of the 
compact size of these recorders;
    (7) Additional testing to be conducted to verify PAM recorders' 
performance due to the limited or non-existent field experience in long 
term deployments and cold Arctic waters;
    (8) Improve the effectiveness of monitoring by using Unmanned 
Aerial Systems for monitoring of marine mammals in the Beaufort Sea;
    (9) Provide information in the reports about how the detections 
obtained by the microMARS are ground-truthed;
    (10) Acoustic characteristics of the identified noise sources be 
included in the reports to provide a better understanding of source 
levels and the robustness of SSV results, and other acoustic 
characteristics of the seismic survey equipment, such as spectral 
content, and received levels in different metrics such as RMS dB, cSEL 
24h, dB peak to peak, and 1/3 octave bands;
    (11) Sightability curves be included in the reports as much as 
possible;
    (12) Coordinate and collaborate with other companies (such as 
Caelus and Repsol) for monitoring the aggregated effects of all their 
activities on spotted seals, especially animals that may be haulted 
out; and
    (13) Continue to make all environmental data (including PSO 
observations, acoustic monitoring, vessel track lines and timing of 
operations) available to the general public.
    In addition, though not solicited as part of the independent peer 
review of the monitoring, the peer review panel also recommended the 
following mitigation measures:
    (1) SAE should limit seismic operations at night or during periods 
of low visibility because PSOs' ability to detect marine mammals 
entering the safety zone is limited;
    (2) If a bowhead whale mother/calf pair or an aggregation of three 
or more bowhead whales are sighted within the Level B harassment zone 
prior to the onset of night or during that day, SAE could be more 
cautious during darkness based on the potential risk to marine mammals. 
If the risk is relatively high, it might be decided that airguns should 
be shut down for the night;
    (3) SAE should not use a mitigation gun for longer than one hour, 
which is the equivalent amount of time for surveying the safety radii 
plus ramp up; and
    (4) Mitigation gun should be shot only once every minute instead of 
every few seconds.
    NMFS discussed the peer review panel report and the list of 
recommendations with SAE. For the aforementioned monitoring measures, 
NMFS requires and SAE agrees to implement the following:
    (1) Conducting sound source verification if the 1,240 in\3\ airgun 
array is used in the proposed 3D seismic survey;
    (2) Mobilizing a dedicated scout (monitoring) vessel with at least 
2 PSOs onboard to monitor the 180 dB exclusion zone (910 m) if the SSV 
test show that the 180 dB radius of the exclusion zone from the 1,240 
in\3\ airgun array is 910 m or larger;
    (3) Deploying microMARS used for PAM at least three days before the 
seismic surveys till three days after the seismic survey in order to 
collect data for comparing the sound field before, during, and after 
the seismic survey;
    (4) Deploying two microMARS units at each of the four corners 
(total of 8 microMARS units);
    (5) Developing a more compact mooring design for microMARS that are 
deployed in shallow waters, particularly because of the compact size of 
these recorders;
    (6) Conducting tests and calibration to verify PAM recorders' 
performance prior to deployment;
    (7) Including sightability curves in the 90-day report;
    (8) Making all environmental data (including PSO observations, 
acoustic monitoring, vessel track lines and timing of operations) 
available for valid scientific research.
    In addition, NMFS worked with SAE on the following 5 of the panel 
recommendations and determined that these will also be required in the 
IHA issued to SAE with clarification and certain modifications to make 
them practicable for implementation. These measures are listed below:
    (1) Regarding the number of PSOs onboard the secondary source 
vessel, this is to clarify that SAE plans to have two PSOs on both 
source vessels, and they will be working on a shift described earlier 
in the ``Monitoring Measure'' section of this document. Therefore, at 
any given time, there will be 2 PSOs monitoring from both source 
vessels. NMFS notes that the number of

[[Page 40026]]

PSOs is limited by the available berth on the seismic vessel. The 
source vessels SAE plan to use are small, and therefore, could only 
afford maximum of 2 PSOs onboard each vessel.
    (2) Regarding ground-truth information in the reports about 
microMARS detection, SAE states that it should be able to identify 
bowhead and beluga calls from acoustic recordings. However, SAE states 
that it will be difficult to identify pinniped calls for species 
identification at distances, especially at the locations where the 
microMARS are deployed there will be no PSOs on watch to verify the 
calling animals. Therefore, ground-truth of acoustic data to specific 
species calls would not be possible. Nevertheless, as stated earlier, 
SAE will make the acoustic data available to researchers who are 
interested in studies that will shed light on marine mammal call 
identification.
    (3) Regarding acoustic characteristics of the identified noise 
sources, and other acoustic characteristics of the seismic survey 
equipment, such as spectral content, and received levels in different 
metrics such as RMS dB, cSEL 24h, dB peak to peak, and 1/3 octave 
bands, SAE will work with its contractor to characterize the identified 
noise sources as much as possible within the limits of the microMARS. 
However, SAE states that some of the requested data analysis would 
require knowing not only the real-time distance of each noise sources, 
but the aspect (e.g., forward, endfire) of the array as well. SAE 
states that for cost reasons, SAE cannot afford extended acoustic 
analysis beyond identified source characterization. Nevertheless, SAE 
will make the acoustic data available to researchers who are interested 
in additional studies of the noise field from data collected by SAE. In 
the IHA issued to SAE, NMFS requires that SAE at least perform basic 
acoustic characteristics of the identified noise sources that include 
spectral content and received levels in different metrics such as RMS 
dB, cSEL 24h, dB peak to peak, and 1/3 octave bands.
    (4) Regarding coordinating and collaborating with other companies 
(such as Caelus and Repsol) for monitoring the aggregated effects of 
all their activities on spotted seals, especially animals that may be 
haulted out, SAE responded that they attempted to coordinate with other 
companies last year for spotted seal monitoring, but none agreed to 
cooperate. In addition, at this point it is unclear whether any other 
companies in the Beaufort Sea may be conducting pinnipeds haul-out 
aerial surveys in the 2015 open-water season. Nevertheless, NMFS 
encourages SAE again to seek cooperation with other companies who may 
be conducting aerial surveys with the goal that information collected 
during those surveys will assist SAE in monitoring pinnipeds use of 
haul-out sites before, during, and after SAE's planned seismic survey.
    The only recommendation from the peer-review panel SAE is not able 
to implement is the utilization of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) for 
monitoring of marine mammals in the Beaufort Sea for marine mammal 
monitoring. The major reason for this is that using UAS for marine 
mammal monitoring is still not a proven technology to provide an 
effective monitoring modality. The resolution from the UAS video camera 
does not have high resolution, especially for pinniped survey due to 
the small size of the animals. In addition, SAE states that the expense 
of flying a UAS is cost-prohibitive for the company. NMFS agrees with 
SAE's reasoning. Therefore, this recommendation is not included in the 
IHA issued to SAE.
    With regards to the panel's mitigation recommendations, NMFS agrees 
with the panel that mitigation airgun should be fired at a rate of 1 
shot per minute instead of every few seconds. This condition is 
required in the IHA issued to SAE.
    Regarding the remaining three mitigation measures provided by the 
peer-review panel, SAE and NMFS discussed and decided that it is 
important to be consistent with existing mitigation practices for 
typical 3D seismic surveys unless new scientific information is 
available that warrant a change. These mitigation measures are 
described in the ``Mitigation'' section above. These three mitigation 
recommendations from the panel are addressed and clarified below:
    (1) Limiting seismic operations at night or during periods of low 
visibility: This recommendation is not consistent with existing 
mitigation practices for a typical marine seismic survey, which require 
no airgun ramping up when the entire exclusion zone cannot be cleared 
due to low visibility. However, if the entire exclusion zone can be 
visually cleared by PSOs, a ramp up can be commenced and, as long as no 
shutdown occurs during the course of the survey, airgun firing can 
continue into night or during periods of low visibility. By limiting 
seismic operations at night or during periods of low visibility, SAE 
would not be able to complete its 3D seismic survey during the project 
period and would have to come back the following year to continue their 
work. This can be cost-prohibitive for the company and will also extend 
the season when the marine environment is affected.
    (2) Be more cautious during darkness based on the potential risk to 
marine mammals if a bowhead whale mother/calf pair or an aggregation of 
three or more bowhead whales are sighted within the Level B harassment 
zone prior to the onset of night or during that day. If the risk is 
relatively high, airguns should be shut down for the night: The panel 
did not define what constitutes ``the risk is relatively high'', and 
without a clear definition, NMFS considers that this recommendation 
cannot be made into a requirement. Additionally, as discussed in (1) 
above, ceasing seismic activities at night because bowhead whale 
mother/calf pair or an aggregation of three or more bowhead whales are 
sighted within the Level B harassment zone during the day would be 
cost-prohibitive, especially consider that the potential risk is not 
identified.
    (3) Mitigation gun not to be operated for more than one hour: NMFS 
does not allow extended use of ``mitigation airgun'' when the seismic 
survey is not ongoing, just so that the applicant can ramp up at night 
or without the 30-minute clearance before ramping up airgun arrays. 
However, NMFS allows a single airgun (so called ``mitigation gun'') to 
be kept on for turning from one track to the next and for short 
transiting purposes. SAE, as well as other seismic surveyors (e.g., 
BP), state that for 3D seismic surveys, an approximately 3-hour time 
frame is needed to complete a turn or short transit, and NMFS has been 
requiring the applicants to use the smallest single airgun for a 
maximum of 3 hours for turning and short transiting purposes (e.g., IHA 
to SAE's 3D seismic survey in 2014 open-water season in Beaufort Sea). 
Further, the panel did not provide a justification for its 
recommendation of maximum of one-hour use of ``mitigation airgun''. 
Therefore, to be consistent with the existing mitigation measures, NMFS 
again requires that SAE use the ``mitigation airgun'' for turning and 
short line transiting only, with a maximum operation time of 3 hours.

Reporting Measures

(1) Sound Source Verification Report
    As discussed earlier, if SAE plans to use the 1,240 in\3\ airgun 
arrays, SSV tests on these arrays will be required. A report on the 
preliminary results of the sound source verification measurements, 
including the measured 190, 180, 170, and 160 dB (rms) radii of

[[Page 40027]]

the 1,240 in\3\ airgun array, would be submitted within 14 days after 
collection of those measurements at the start of the field season.
(2) Weekly Reports
    SAE will submit weekly reports to NMFS no later than the close of 
business (Alaska Time) each Thursday during the weeks when seismic 
surveys take place. The field reports will summarize species detected, 
in-water activity occurring at the time of the sighting, behavioral 
reactions to in-water activities, and the number of marine mammals 
exposed to harassment level noise.
(3) Monthly Reports
    SAE will submit monthly reports to NMFS for all months during which 
seismic surveys take place. The monthly reports will contain and 
summarize the following information:
     Dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, sea 
conditions (including Beaufort Sea state and wind force), and 
associated activities during the seismic survey and marine mammal 
sightings.
     Species, number, location, distance from the vessel, and 
behavior of any sighted marine mammals, as well as associated surveys 
(number of shutdowns), observed throughout all monitoring activities.
     An estimate of the number (by species) of: (i) Pinnipeds 
that have been exposed to the seismic surveys (based on visual 
observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 
[micro]Pa (rms) and/or 190 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) with a discussion of 
any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited; and (ii) cetaceans 
that have been exposed to the geophysical activity (based on visual 
observation) at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 
[micro]Pa (rms) and/or 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) with a discussion of 
any specific behaviors those individuals exhibited.
(4) Technical Report
    The results of SAE's 2015 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;
    (i) Acoustic characteristics of the identified noise sources. These 
should include the acoustic characteristics of the seismic survey 
equipment, such as spectral content, and received levels in different 
metrics such as RMS dB, cSEL 24h, dB peak to peak, and 1/3 octave 
bands; and
    (j) Provide sightability curves in the 90-day report.
(5) Data Sharing and Research Collaboration
    (a) Make all environmental data (including PSO observation, 
acoustic monitoring, vessel track lines and timing of operations) 
available for valid scientific research purposes; and
    (b) Make a best effort to coordinate and collaborate with other 
companies for monitoring the aggregated effects of all their activities 
on spotted seals, especially animals that many be hauled out.
(6) 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 a 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 a dead marine mammal, and the lead 
PSO determines that the cause of the 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

[[Page 40028]]

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 a dead marine mammal, and the lead 
PSO determines that the 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 was issued an IHA for a 3D OBN seismic survey in the same area 
of the proposed 2015 seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea during the 2014 
Arctic open-water season. SAE conducted the seismic survey between 
August 25 and September 30, 2014. The technical report (90-day report) 
submitted by SAE indicates that one beluga whale and 2 spotted seals 
were observed within the 180-dB exclusion zones during the survey that 
prompted immediate shutdown. Two additional spotted seals were detected 
within the zone of influence when the airgun arrays were firing. Post-
activity analysis based on total sighting data concluded that up to 
approximately 5 beluga whales and 264 pinnipeds (likely all spotted 
seals due to their large numbers) could be exposed to received levels 
above 160-dB re 1 [micro]Pa. Some of these could be exposed to levels 
that may have Level A harassment which was not authorized under the 
previous IHA. Nevertheless, take of Level B harassment were under the 
take limits allowed by the IHA issued to SAE.
    Based on the monitoring results from SAE's 2014 seismic survey, 
NMFS is re-evaluating the potential effects on marine mammals and 
requested SAE to conduct analysis on potential Level A takes (see 
``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section below).

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].
    Takes by Level A and Level B harassments of some species are 
anticipated as a result of SAE's proposed 3D seismic survey. NMFS 
expects marine mammal takes could result from noise propagation from 
operation of seismic airguns. NMFS does not expect marine mammals would 
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 proposed 
to be used in SAE's 3D OBN seismic surveys, NMFS uses the 180 and 190 
dB (rms) re 1 [mu]Pa isopleth to indicate the onset of Level A 
harassment for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively; and the 160 dB 
(rms) re 1 [mu]Pa isopleth for Level B harassment of all marine 
mammals. SAE provided calculations of the 190-, 180-, and 160-dB 
isopleths expected to be produced by the proposed 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 acoustical footprint that could cause harassment (Levels A and 
B) was determined by placing a 160-dB isopleth buffer around the area 
that would be surveyed (shot) during the 2015 open water season (777 
km\2\). SAE stated that for the majority of its proposed 2015 seismic 
survey, a 620 in\3\ airgun array would be used. However, to make 
conservative impact analysis, SAE uses the acoustic footprint of a 
large 1,240 in\3\ array for this analysis.
    There are no precise estimates for the 1,240-in\3\ array. The 
estimated distances to the 160 dB isopleth for the 1,240-in\3\ array 
are based on the sound source measurements from Austin and Warner 
(2012) for a 1,200-in\3\ array in Cook Inlet. The results showed a 
measured distance of 5.2 km to the 160 dB isopleths (Table 2). Placing 
a 5.2-km buffer around the 777 km\2\ maximum shot area results in an 
estimated annual ZOI of 1,463 km\2\ (565 mi\2\), which is the ZOI value 
used in the exposure estimate calculations.
    Because the exact location of the 2015 shoot area is currently 
unknown, the distribution of marine mammal habitat within the shoot 
area is unknown. However, within the 4,562 km\2\ potential survey box, 
19% (860 km\2\) falls within the 0 to 1.5 m water depth range, 16% (753 
km\2\) falls within the 1.5 to 5 m range, 36% (1,635 km\2\) within the 
5 to 15 m range, and 29 percent% (1,348 km\2\) within waters greater 
than 15 m deep (bowhead migration corridor). Thus, not all the area 
that could be surveyed in 2015 constitutes bowhead summer (>5 m depth) 
or fall migrating (>15 m depth) habitat. Further, few of the lease 
areas that could be shot in 2015 extend into the deeper waters of the 
potential survey box. The distribution of these depth ranges is found 
in Figure 6-1 of SAE's IHA application.

Marine Mammal Densities

    In the Federal Register notice (80 FR 20084; April 14, 2015) for 
the proposed IHA, NMFS used the aerial survey data (Ferguson and Clarke 
2013) collected in the Beaufort Sea during the Aerial Surveys of Arctic 
Marine Mammals (ASAMM) program in 2012 and 2013 for bowhead whale 
density calculation. At the time of the proposed IHA stage, 2014 
density data had not been vetted. Subsequently, the 2014 aerial survey 
data for bowhead whale became available, and NMFS was advised by the 
National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) and NMFS Alaska Regional 
Office (AKRO) to use the 2008--2014 bowhead and beluga whale survey 
data and a g(0) of 0.8696 and f(0) of 0.07 for density estimates. Both 
g(0) and f(0) are factors used to correct the potential presence of 
animals not detected and potential missed sighting from the survey. The 
results showed much higher density for bowhead whale within the SAE's 
proposed 3D seismic survey area. The revised bowhead whale density, 
along with densities of other marine mammals that could be affected by 
SAE's 3D seismic survey, are provided in Table 3.

[[Page 40029]]



     Table 3. Marine mammal densities (#/km\2\) in the Beaufort Sea
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Species                         Summer      Fall
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale.....................................     0.1674     0.4828
Beluga whale......................................     0.0020     0.0057
Ringed seal.......................................     0.3547     0.2510
Spotted seal......................................     0.0177     0.0125
Bearded seal......................................     0.0177     0.0125
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Level B Exposure Calculations

    In the Federal Register notice (80 FR 20084; April 14, 2015) for 
the proposed IHA, NMFS performed marine mammal take estimates by 
multiplying animal density and the total ensonified area of the entire 
survey without incorporating a time vector. However, the Commission 
pointed out in its comment that such method does not take into account 
the potential of new animals moving into the ensonified area during the 
course of the survey. NMFS also realized that although such method 
provides take estimates that closely matched the actual estimated takes 
provided in the 90-day reports (with corrections to count for animals 
missed due to avoidance of seismic exposure and missed detection), the 
potential of not counting new animals moving into the area could 
underestimate the actual take. Therefore, in response to the 
Commission's response, NMFS is incorporating a time vector, survey 
days, into take estimates by multiplying animal density and daily 
ensonified area and the number of survey days. However, this method 
provides the number of instances of take without accounting for the 
fact that some individuals may be taken more than once during the 
survey. Since the same animal is very likely to be taken multiple times 
on different days, this method presents a serious issue when analyzing 
the number of unique animals from a given population that are harassed. 
To address this issue, NMFS applied a correction factor, the daily 
turnover rate, to provide take estimates that are more realistic.
1. Daily Ensonified Area
    SAE states that regardless the size of the airgun array, the daily 
survey area is 18.75 mi\2\. However, the daily ensonified areas, which 
are the daily survey areas in additional to areas that would be 
ensonified to 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa, would vary with the size of the 
airgun array used. The specific daily ensonified areas depend on the 
ensonified radii from different airgun arrays shown in Table 2. For the 
620 in\3\ airgun array, the daily ensonified area out to the 160 dB re 
1 [micro]Pa is 43.6 mi\2\, or 113 km\2\. For the 1,240 in\3\ airgun 
array, the daily ensonified area out the 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa is 117 
mi\2\, or 303 km\2\.
    Assuming that the survey areas of different bathymetry are 
proportionally represented by the bathymetry of the entire survey box, 
then 19% of the survey area will be less than 1.5 m deep, 16% survey 
area is 1.5-5 m deep, 36% survey area 5-15 m deep, and the remaining 
29% survey area is deeper than 15 m. As stated earlier, waters below 5 
m deep are not bowhead whale habitat, therefore, bowhead takes are 
excluded from these waters. In addition, waters below 15 m deep are not 
bowheads habitat during the fall, therefore, they are also excluded for 
take calculation for SAE's 3D survey in the fall.
    No adjustments were made for beluga whales, and ringed, spotted, 
and bearded seals, as they could appear in much shallower waters.
2. Number of Survey Days
    As discussed in the Federal Register notice (80 FR 20084; April 14, 
2015) and in this document, within the total of 107 days of this IHA 
(from July 1 to October 15, 2015), SAE states that survey is 
anticipated to last 70 days, of which approximately 70% of the time, or 
a total of 49 days, when the actual seismic survey using airgun arrays 
will be occurring, depending on weather and ice conditions. Though it 
cannot be predicted the exact days when incremental weather and ice 
conditions would present the surveys, for the purpose of this analysis, 
NMFS prorated survey days in summer (July 1 to August 31) and in fall 
(September 1 to October 15) with the total days in summer (62 days) and 
fall (45 days), which yielded 28 survey days in summer and 21 survey 
days in fall.
3. Turnover Rate of Marine Mammals
    For bowhead whales, during the summer period into early fall 
(August to October), they are often observed feeding from Smith Bay to 
Point Barrow (Clarke & Ferguson, 2010a, 2010b; Clarke et al. 2011a, 
2011b, 2012, 2013). In other areas of the western Beaufort Sea 
(including the SAE's proposed seismic survey area), bowhead whales may 
feed on the continental shelf, out to approximately the 50-m isobath, 
in September and October (Clarke et al. 2015). In the fall period 
(September and October), bowhead whales are observed migrating through 
the western Beaufort Sea primarily on the shelf (including the SAE's 
proposed seismic survey area), at depths less than 50 m, with some 
whales migrating across the outer shelf (Clarkes et al., 2015).
    It is difficult to determine an average turnover time for 
individual bowhead whales in a particular area of the Beaufort Sea. 
Reasons for this include differences in residency time between 
migratory and non-migratory periods, changes in distribution of food 
and other factors such as behavior that influence animal movement, 
variation among individuals, etc.
    Complete turnover of individual bowhead whales in the project area 
each 24-hour period is possible during distinct periods within the fall 
migration when bowheads are traveling through the area, however, 
bowheads often move in pulses with one to several days between major 
pulses of whales (Miller et al. 2002). Gaps between groups of traveling 
whales during fall migration result in days when no bowhead whales 
would be expected to be present in the activity area. The absence of 
bowhead whales during periods of the fall migration can likely be 
attributed to individuals stopping to feed opportunistically when food 
is encountered, which is known to occur annually in an area north of 
Barrow (Citta et al. 2014). The extent of feeding by bowhead whales 
during fall migration varies greatly from year to year based on the 
location and abundance of prey (Shelden and Mocklin 2013). For these 
reasons, NMFS believes a daily 100% turnover period for bowhead whales 
is unnecessarily conservative and has selected a daily turnover rate of 
50% to account for both feeding (where animals stay relatively within 
an area) and migration (where animals are moving across an area) in 
both fall and winter.
    For beluga whales, two stocks are potentially present in the SAE 3D 
seismic survey areas: the East Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea stocks. 
Since they cannot be visually distinguished in the field, the 
proportion of take form each stock in the seismic survey area in 
Beaufort Sea cannot be determined (Allen and Angliss 2014). Thus it 
would be difficult to assess the turnover rate of beluga whales because 
each different stock has its own migratory pattern and time. Therefore, 
NMFS used the most conservative measure of assuming complete turnover 
of the animals every 24 hours, making a daily turnover rate of 100% for 
a more conservative take calculation.
    For ringed seals, satellite tagging data from tagging studies 
fromthe State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game's Marine Mammals 
Program, the Ice Seal Committee, and interested seal hunters from 
villages along the west and north coasts of Alaska were used to derive 
a turnover rate for this species. Data from

[[Page 40030]]

these tagged animals showed that in addition to a long distance 
seasonal migration, there are many instances from July through 
September when individual ringed seals stayed in a relatively small 
area (compared to their migration route) up to multiple weeks, 
including on and around the offshore continental shelf leased blocks. 
In addition, Patterson et al. (2014) indicate a turnover period of a 
week or more for individual seals in the vicinity of the seismic survey 
in the Alaskan Arctic may be more appropriate, based on the 6-24 day 
area occupancy. These results suggest that assuming a 100% turnover of 
all individual seals around SAE's seismic survey box on a daily basis 
is unreasonable, and a period closer to a week may be more appropriate 
and yet still conservative for other individuals that remained in the 
area for longer periods. Therefore, for the purpose of this IHA, NMFS 
used a slightly higher turnover rate than the weekly rate, i.e., a 48-
hour (or 50%) turnover rate, to be more conservative.
    Few data are available on the home range and movement patterns of 
the other two ice seals, the bearded seal and spotted seals. Therefore, 
we used the most conservative daily turnover rate for take estimates of 
these species.
4. Use of Different Size of Airgun Arrays
    As discussed in the Federal Register notice (80 FR 20084; April 14, 
2015) for the proposed IHA and early in this document, two types of 
airgun arrays will be used during SAE's 3D seismic survey in the 
Beaufort Sea: 620 in\3\ and 1,240 in\3\ airgun arrays. Upon inquiry 
from NMFS regarding the frequency of different airgun arrays being 
used, SAE expects that approximately 80% of the survey would be done 
using the 620 in\3\ array, with the remaining by the 1,240 in\3\ array. 
Therefore, the take number estimates reflect the combination of takes 
from each of these two airgun arrays in a 4:1 ration for the 620 in\3\ 
vs. 1,240 in\3\ arrays.
    Based on the above described take estimate calculation by 
multiplying ensonified area by animal density by survey days in 
specific marine mammal habitat and season, adjusted by turnover rates 
and different airgun usage, the estimated number of bowhead and beluga 
whales, and ringed, spotted, and bearded seals can be calculated. A 
summary of the calculation is provided in Table 4 below.

   Table 4--Summary of Calculation of Marine Mammal Exposed to Received Levels Higher Than 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa for SAE's Proposed 3D Seismic Survey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Summer                                   Fall                            All seasons
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Species (habitat)                                                                                                                    Total
                                               ZOI      Days     Density   Summer      ZOI      Days     Density    Fall      Turn-    Airgun   adjusted
                                             (km\2\)             (km-1)   exposure   (km\2\)             (km-1)   exposure    over      usage   exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Airgun array volume: 620 in\3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale.............................       113  ........  ........       344       113  ........  ........     332.2        50        80       271
    (0.0-1.5m)............................     21.47        28         0         0     21.47        21         0         0  ........  ........  ........
    (1.5-5.0m)............................     18.08        28         0         0     18.08        21         0         0  ........  ........  ........
    (5.0-15.0m)...........................     40.68        28    0.1674     190.6     40.68        21         0         0  ........  ........  ........
    (15.0m)....................     32.77        28    0.1674     153.6     32.77        21    0.4828     332.2  ........  ........  ........
Beluga whale..............................       113        28    0.0020       6.3       113        21    0.0057      13.5       100        80        16
Ringed seal...............................       113        28    0.3547    1122.3       113        21    0.2510     595.6        20        80       687
Spotted seal..............................       113        28    0.0177        56       113        21    0.0125      29.7       100        80        69
Bearded seal..............................       113        28    0.0177        56       113        21    0.0125      29.7       100        80        69
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Airgun array volume: 1,240 in\3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale.............................       303  ........  ........       923       303  ........  ........       891        50        20       181
    (0.0-1.5m)............................     57.57        28         0         0     57.57        21         0         0  ........  ........  ........
    (1.5-5.0m)............................     48.48        28         0         0     48.48        21         0         0  ........  ........  ........
    (5.0-15.0m)...........................     109.1        28    0.1674     511.2     109.1        21         0         0  ........  ........  ........
    (15.0m)....................     87.87        28    0.1674     411.8     87.87        21    0.4828     890.8  ........  ........  ........
Beluga whale..............................       303        28    0.0020        17       303        21    030057      36.3       100        20        11
Ringed seal...............................       303        28    0.3547    3009.3       303        21    0.2510    1597.1        20        20       461
Spotted seal..............................       303        28    0.0177     150.2       303        21    0.0125      79.5       100        20        46
Bearded seal..............................       303        28    0.0177     150.2       303        21    0.0125      79.5       100        20        46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The potential takes of spotted seals are adjusted based on 
observations during SAE's 2014 seismic operations immediately east of 
the Colville River Delta (Lomac-MacNair et al., 2014). The 90-day 
report (Lomac-MacNair et al., 2014) reported only 5 confirmed sightings 
of ringed seals, none of which were observed during active seismic 
activity. But a total of 40 spotted seals (4 during seismic surveys) 
and an additional 28 seals (could be either ringed or spotted seals, 
with 4 during seismic surveys) were observed. Given only 88 km\2\ were 
shot in 2014, this would extrapolate to about 353 spotted seals 
observed during the planned 777 km2 of operations planned in 2015. If 
80% of the ringed/spotted seal sightings were actually spotted seals, 
then an additional 200 spotted seals would be observed during the 
seismic survey. Given the nearshore location of the planned seismic 
activities and proximity to Colville River Delta spotted seal haulout 
sites, and likelihood that a number of seals that were exposed to 
seismic noise exceeding 160 dB were not observed, NMFS corrected the 
spotted seal takes to 500.
    No density data for gray whale is available in the SAE's proposed 
survey area, because gray whale occurrence in the Beaufort Sea is not 
frequent, especially in nearshore water where SAE's survey area is. 
Based on sighting data, only a few gray where have been documented in 
the nearshore Beaufort Sea (Green and Negri, 2005, Green et al., 2007). 
Therefore, it is estimated up to 2 gray whales could be taken by Level 
B harassment as a result of SAE's 3D seismic survey during the 2015 
open-water season in the Beaufort Sea.
    A summary of estimated number of marine mammal potentially exposed 
to received sound levels greater than 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa is provided 
in Table 6.

Level A Exposure Calculations

    As discussed earlier in this section, NMFS considers that exposures 
to pinnipeds at noise levels above 190 dB and cetaceans at noise levels 
above 180

[[Page 40031]]

dB constitute Level A takes under the MMPA. Although brief exposure of 
marine mammals at these levels are not likely to cause TTS or PTS 
(Southall et al. 2007), this consideration is a precaution NMFS takes 
for its effect analysis.
    The methods used in estimate Level A exposure is the same for Level 
B estimates, i.e., multiplying the total amount of area available to 
the species that could be seasonally ensonified by noise levels 
exceeding 190 and 180 dB by density of each species by the number of 
survey days in each season, then corrected by the animals turnover 
rates and different airgun array usage. The results of potential Level 
A exposure are shown in Table 5, assuming that animals will not avoid 
being exposed to received levels that could cause hearing threshold 
shifts or even injury, which is highly unlikely, and that no mitigation 
and monitoring measures would be implemented to avoid Level A takes.

 Table 5--Summary of Calculation of Cetaceans Exposed to Received Levels Higher Than 180 Db and Pinnipeds Exposure to Received Levels Higher Than 190 dB
  re 1 [micro]Pa, With No Consideration of Animals Avoiding Level A Exclusion Zone and No Monitoring and Mitigation Measures Are In Place To Avoid Such
                                                                        Exposures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Summer                                   Fall                            All seasons
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Species (habitat)                                                                                                         Airgun     Total
                                               ZOI      Days     Density   Summer      ZOI      Days     Density    Fall      Turn-     usage   adjusted
                                             (km\2\)             (km-1)   exposure   (km\2\)             (km-1)   exposure  over (%)     (%)    exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Airgun array volume: 620 in\3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale.............................      67.8  ........  ........       206      67.8  ........  ........       199       50%       80%       162
    (0.0--1.5m)...........................     12.88        28         0         0     12.88        21         0         0  ........  ........  ........
    (1.5--5.0m)...........................     10.85        28         0         0     10.85        21         0         0  ........  ........  ........
    (5.0--15.0m)..........................     24.41        28    0.1674     114.4     24.41        21         0         0  ........  ........  ........
    (15.0m)....................     19.66        28    0.1674      92.2     19.66        21    0.4828     199.4  ........  ........  ........
Beluga whale..............................      67.8        28    0.0020       3.8      67.8        21    0.0057       8.1       100        80        10
Ringed seal...............................      54.2        28    0.3547       538      54.2        21    0.2510     285.5        20        80       329
Spotted seal..............................      54.2        28    0.0177      26.8      54.2        21    0.0125      14.2       100        80        33
Bearded seal..............................      54.2        28    0.0177      26.8      54.2        21    0.0125      14.2       100        80        33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Airgun array volume: 1,240 in\3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale.............................        78  ........  ........       237        78  ........  ........       229       50%       20%        47
    (0.0--1.5m)...........................     14.77        28         0         0     14.77        21         0         0  ........  ........  ........
    (1.5--5.0m)...........................     12.44        28         0         0     12.44        21         0         0  ........  ........  ........
    (5.0--15.0m)..........................     27.99        28    0.1674     131.1     27.99        21         0         0  ........  ........  ........
    (15.0m)....................     22.54        28    0.1674     105.6     22.54        21    0.4828     228.6  ........  ........  ........
Beluga whale..............................     77.74        28    0.0020       4.4     77.74        21    030057       9.3       100        20         3
Ringed seal...............................     55.84        28    0.3547     554.6     55.84        21    0.2510     294.3        20        20        85
Spotted seal..............................     55.84        28    0.0177      27.7     55.84        21    0.0125      14.7       100        20         8
Bearded seal..............................     55.84        28    0.0177      27.7     55.84        21    0.0125      14.7       100        20         8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note that the numbers presented in Table 5 are 
not the Level A take numbers. These numbers represent an unlikely 
scenario of exposure incidences if an animal did not avoid the intense 
noise field that could cause hearing impairment or injury and no 
monitoring or mitigation measures were implemented to avoid such 
consequences. Literature (e.g., Richardson et al. 1995, 1999; Southall 
et al. 2007) shows that marine mammals often avoid areas with intense 
noises, especially bowhead whales, even when the received noise levels 
are way below the levels that could elicit Level B harassment. Although 
this avoidance of an area by the marine mammals does not preclude the 
animals being taken by Level B harassment, it lessens the likelihood 
that they will be exposed above 180 dB for cetaceans and 190 dB for 
pinnipeds and incur hearing impairment or injury.
    Most importantly, monitoring and mitigation measures prescribed in 
the IHA require SAE to shut down or power down airgun arrays when a 
marine mammal is detected approaching, therefore, potential Level A 
harassment can be further avoided. Especially for non-deep diving large 
cetaceans such as bowhead whales (and to some extent beluga whales), 
vessel-based visual monitoring is effective to detect the whales before 
they enter the exclusion zone, as shown in previous 90-day reports from 
SAE and other open-water seismic survey activities. Nevertheless, in 
the unlikely case if a marine mammal is not detected by the PSO and did 
not avoid the 180 or 190 dB established for cetaceans and pinnipeds, 
respectively, a Level A take could occur. To derive more realistic 
Level A take estimates and in discussion with the Commission, NMFS 
consulted with the ESA biologists at NMFS Alaska Region. In addition, 
NMFS reviewed the monitoring results from SAE's 90-day report of its 
2014 3D seismic survey in the same area with similar airgun arrays and 
vessel types, and also reviewed monitoring results from other 
monitoring reports in nearby waters in Beaufort Sea using similar sizes 
of airgun arrays (e.g., BP's 2012 Simpson Lagoon 3D seismic survey and 
BP's 2014 North Prudhoe Bay 3D seismic survey). Based on the review of 
these monitoring plans (including consideration of missed detections), 
the likely effectiveness of the mitigation and the likely avoidance of 
high levels of sound, NMFS modified the authorized Level A take as 
follows: 1 bowhead whale, 4 beluga whale, 20 ringed seals, 20 spotted 
seals, and 10 bearded seals.
    A summary of authorized Level A and Level B harassments for SAE's 
3D seismic surveys in the Colville Delta of the Beaufort Sea is 
provided in Table 6.

[[Page 40032]]



 Table 6--The Authorized Level A and Level B Harassments of Marine Mammals for SAE's 2015 Open-Water 3D Seismic
                                           Survey in the Beaufort Sea
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Authorized      Authorized
                     Species                           Stock          Level B         Level A      % of take by
                                                     abundance      harassment      harassment         stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale...................................          19,534             452               1            2.31
Beluga whale (Beaufort Sea stock)...............          39,258              27               4            0.07
Beluga whale (E. Chukchi Sea stock).............           3,710              27               4            0.73
Gray whale......................................          19,126               2               0            0.01
Ringed seal.....................................         300,000           1,148              20            0.39
Spotted seal....................................         141,479             500              20            0.35
Bearded seal....................................         155,000             115              10            0.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated Level A and Level B takes as a percentage of the 
marine mammal stock are 2.31% or less in all cases (Table 6). The 
highest percent of population estimated to be taken is 0.005% for Level 
A and 2.31% for Level B harassments for bowhead whale. For beluga 
whales, since there are two stocks in the proposed action, the 
percentage of the takes represent the worst case scenario when all 
takes occur in Beaufort Sea stock (0.07%) or East Chukchi Sea stock 
(0.73%). However, most likely the percentage of takes for each stock 
would not be this worst case scenario.

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.
    To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses 
applies to all the species listed in Table 6, given that the 
anticipated effects of SAE's 3D seismic survey project on marine 
mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there 
are meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups of 
species, in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of 
expected take on the population due to differences in population 
status, or impacts on habitat, they are described independently in the 
analysis below.
    No serious injuries or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a 
result of SAE's proposed 3D seismic survey, and none are proposed to be 
authorized. The takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected 
to be limited to short-term Level B behavioral harassment, and Level A 
harassment in the form of permanent hearing threshold shifts. While the 
airguns are expected to be operated for approximately 49 days within a 
70-day period, the project timeframe will occur when cetacean species 
are typically not found in the project area or are found only in low 
numbers. While pinnipeds are likely to be found in the proposed project 
area more frequently, their distribution is dispersed enough that they 
likely will not be in the Level A or Level B harassment zone 
continuously. As mentioned previously in this document, pinnipeds 
appear to be more tolerant of anthropogenic sound than mysticetes.

Bowhead Whales

    The bowhead whale is listed as endangered species under the ESA and 
depleted under the MMPA. However, despite these designations, the 
Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock of bowheads has been increasing at a rate 
of 3.4% annually for nearly a decade (Allen and Angliss, 2011), even in 
the face of ongoing industrial activity. 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, 2011).
    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. In addition, elevated background noise level 
from the seismic airgun reverberant field could cause acoustic masking 
to bowhead whales 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 apart) means that overall 
received levels at distance are expected to be much lower, thus 
resulting in less acoustic masking.
    Bowhead whales are less likely to occur in the proposed project 
area in July and early August, as they are found mostly in the Canadian 
Beaufort Sea at this time. The animals are more likely to occur later 
in the season (late-August through October), as they head west towards 
Chukchi Sea.
    It is estimated that a maximum of 452 bowhead whales (2.31%) could 
be taken by Level B harassment. Potential impacts to bowhead whales 
from SAE's 3D seismic surveys would be limited to brief behavioral 
disturbances and temporary avoidance of the ensonified areas.
    In their westward migration route, bowhead whales have been 
observed to feed in the vicinity of the survey area in the Beaufort 
Sea. Most of the feedings are observed in the September to October 
period as more bowhead whales are moving through the migratory corridor 
in the Beaufort Sea. Therefore, the areas in offshore Beaufort Sea are 
considered as biologically important areas for bowhead whales in 
September and October (Clarke et al. 2015). However, their habitat is 
in relatively deeper water > 15 m, which accounts for only 29% of SAE's 
proposed seismic survey area.
    The proposed activity also partially overlaps with BIAs where 
bowhead whale mother/calf pairs are sighted in the summer and fall and 
BIAs of bowhead whale fall migration (Clarke et al., 2015). However, as 
discussed

[[Page 40033]]

previously, the majority of the survey areas (71%) are in shallow 
waters < 15 m, and are not considered bowhead habitat in the fall. In 
the summer, bowhead whale habitat extends to much shallower area of < 5 
m, which counts for about 65% of the proposed 3D seismic survey areas.
    Due to the relatively small airgun arrays to be used in the SAE's 
3D seismic survey, noise exposure to bowhead whales is expected to be 
low and would in almost all cases cause Level B harassment in the form 
of mild and temporary behavioral modification and/or avoidance. 
Moreover, the majority of the ensonified areas (67%) would fall between 
160 and 166 dB re 1 [micro]Pa for impulse noise, which at the low-end 
of the range for Level B behavioral harassment by noise exposure.
    It is estimated that up to 1 bowhead whale could be exposed to 
received noise levels above 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for durations long 
enough to cause PTS, if the animal does not avoid the area for some 
reason and is not detected in time to have mitigation measures 
implemented. Marine mammals that are taken by TTS (which is a form of 
Level B harassment) are expected to receive minor (in the order of 
several dBs) and brief (minutes to hours) temporary hearing impairment 
because (1) animals are not likely to remain for prolonged periods 
within high intensity sound fields, and (2) both the seismic vessel and 
the animals are constantly moving, and it is unlikely that the animal 
will be moving along with the vessel during the survey. Although 
repeated experience to TTS (Level B harassment) could result in PTS 
(Level A harassment), for the same reasons discussed above, even if 
marine mammals experience PTS, the degree of PTS is expected to be 
mild, resulting in a few dB elevation of hearing threshold, and are not 
expected to be biologically significant for the population or species.

Beluga Whale

    Odontocete reactions to seismic airgun pulses are generally assumed 
to be limited to shorter distances from the airgun than are those of 
mysticetes (e.g., bowhead whales), 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.
    Beluga whales are less likely to occur in the proposed project area 
in July and early August, as they are found mostly in the Canadian 
Beaufort Sea at this time. The animals are more likely to occur later 
in the season (late-August through October), as they head west towards 
Chukchi Sea. However, most beluga whales are expected to occur in much 
deeper water offshore in the Beaufort Sea during its migration. The 
beluga whale fall migration BIAs are approximately 75 km offshore from 
the SAE's proposed seismic survey area (Clarke et al., 2015). No other 
beluga whale BIAs overlap with SAE's proposed survey area.
    It is estimated that a maximum of 27 beluga whales (0.07% from the 
Beaufort Sea stock if all animals taken are from the Beaufort Sea 
stock, or 0.73% from the East Chukchi Sea stock if all animals taken 
are from the East Chukchi Sea stock) could be taken by Level B 
harassment. Potential impacts to beluga whales from SAE's 3D seismic 
survey activity include brief behavioral disturbances and temporary 
avoidance of the ensonified areas.
    It is estimated that up to 4 beluga whales could be exposed to 
received noise levels above 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for durations long 
enough to cause PTS, if the animals do not avoid are area for some 
reason and are not detected in time to have mitigation measures 
implemented. Marine mammals that are taken by TTS (which is a form of 
Level B harassment) are expected to receive minor (in the order of 
several dBs) and brief (minutes to hours) temporary hearing impairment 
because (1) animals are not likely to remain for prolonged periods 
within high intensity sound fields, and (2) both the seismic vessel and 
the animals are constantly moving, and it is unlikely that the animal 
will be moving along with the vessel during the survey. Although 
repeated experience to TTS (Level B harassment) could result in PTS 
(Level A harassment), for the same reasons discussed above, even if 
marine mammals experience PTS, the degree of PTS is expected to be 
mild, resulting in a few dB elevation of hearing threshold, and are not 
expected to be biologically significant for the population or species.

Gray Whales

    Gray whales are not commonly encountered in the Beaufort Sea coast, 
though occasional sightings have occurred in the past. It is estimated 
that a maximum of 2 gray whales (0.01%) could be taken by Level B 
harassment. Potential impacts to gray whales from SAE's 3D seismic 
survey will be limited to brief behavioral disturbances and temporary 
avoidance of the ensonified areas. No Level A takes of gray whale is 
expected, and none is authorized.
    No BIA for gray whales overlaps with SAE's 3D seismic survey in the 
Beaufort Sea (the gray whale reproduction and feeding BIAs during the 
summer and fall are in the Chukchi Sea (Clarke et al. 2015)).

Pinnipeds

    Ringed, spotted, and bearded are regularly encountered in the 
proposed SAE's seismic survey area, with the first two species being 
most common. Ringed seals were recently listed under the ESA as 
threatened species, and are considered depleted under the MMPA. On July 
25, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska vacated 
NMFS' rule listing the Beringia bearded seal DPS as threatened and 
remanded the rule to NMFS to correct the deficiencies identified in the 
opinion.
    As stated in the Federal Register notice (80 FR 20084; April 14, 
2015) for the proposed IHA, they appear to be more tolerant of 
anthropogenic sound, especially at lower received levels, than other 
marine mammals, such as mysticetes. SAE's proposed activities would 
occur at a time of year when these seal species found in the region are 
not molting, breeding, or pupping. Therefore, these important life 
functions would not be impacted by SAE's proposed activities. The 
exposure of pinnipeds to sounds produced by SAE's proposed 3D seismic 
survey operations in the Beaufort Sea is not expected to result in more 
than Level B harassment of individuals from pinnipeds in most cases, 
with a few by Level A harassment in the form of TTS (Level B 
harassment) and PTS (Level A harassment).
    It is estimated that maxima of 459 ringed seals (0.15%), 500 
spotted seals (0.35%), and 115 bearded seals (0.07%) could be taken by 
Level B harassment. Level B behavioral harassment to these species from 
SAE's 3D seismic survey activity include brief behavioral disturbances 
and temporary avoidance of the ensonified areas.
    In addition, it is estimated that up to 20 ringed and spotted seals 
and 10 bearded seals could be exposed to received noise levels above 
190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for durations long enough to cause TTS, if the 
animals do not avoid are area for some reason and are not detected in 
time to have mitigation measures implemented (or even PTS if such 
exposures occurred repeatedly). Marine mammals that are taken by TTS 
are expected to receive minor (in the order of several dBs) and brief 
(minutes

[[Page 40034]]

to hours) temporary hearing impairment because (1) animals are not 
likely to remain for prolonged periods within high intensity sound 
fields, and (2) both the seismic vessel and the animals are constantly 
moving, and it is unlikely that the animal will be moving along with 
the vessel during the survey. Although repeated experience to TTS could 
result in PTS (Level A harassment), for the same reasons discussed 
above, even if marine mammals experience PTS, the degree of PTS is 
expected to be mild, resulting in a few dB elevation of hearing 
threshold. Therefore, even if a few marine mammals receive TTS or PTS, 
the degree of these effects are expected to be minor and, in the case 
of TTS, brief, and are not expected to be biologically significant for 
the population or species.
    No biologically important area exists for seals in the vicinity of 
SAE's 3D seismic survey activities.
    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 proposed open-water activities 
and short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition 
of ``Level B harassments.'' The many reported cases of apparent 
tolerance by marine mammals 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 shut downs or 
power downs when marine mammals are seen within defined ranges, will 
further reduce short-term reactions and minimize any effects on hearing 
sensitivity. In all cases, the effects are expected to be short-term, 
with no lasting biological consequence.
    Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed 
previously in the Federal Register notice (80 FR 20084; April 14, 2015) 
for the proposed IHA (see the ``Anticipated Effects on Habitat'' 
section of that document). 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 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 proposed monitoring and 
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from 
SAE's proposed 3D 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 proposed to be authorized represent less than 
2.31% for all populations or stocks potentially impacted (see Table 6 
in this document). These take estimates represent the maximum 
percentage of each species or stock that could be taken by Level B 
behavioral harassment and Level A harassment if each animal is taken 
only once, and each take represents a different individual animal. 
However, it is likely that many, if not most, individual animals could 
be taken multiple times due to their short term movement patter and 
home range. Therefore, the percentages of takes of marine mammals among 
their populations are likely to be much lower. 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) prescribed in the IHA are expected to reduce even further any 
potential disturbance and injuries 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 proposed 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 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

[[Page 40035]]

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 the 
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
    Noise and general activity during SAE's proposed 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 has prepared a POC, which was developed by identifying and 
evaluating any potential effects the proposed seismic survey might have 
on seasonal abundance that is relied upon for subsistence use. For the 
proposed project, SAE worked 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.
    As a joint venture partner with Kuukpik, SAE is working closely 
with them 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. In addition, SAE signed a Conflict 
Avoidance Agreement (CAA) with the AEWC and other subsistence whaling 
communities.
    SAE adopted a three-stage process to develop its POC:
    Stage 1: To open communications SAE attended and presented the 
program description to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) 
during their mini-convention in December, 2014, in Anchorage. 
Collaboration meetings were held in March and April 2015 with Kuukpik 
Corporation leaders. Kuukpik Corporation is SAE's joint venture 
partners in the project and on the North Slope of Alaska.
    Prior to offshore activities, SAE met and consulted with nearby 
communities, the North Slope Borough (NSB) planning department and the 
Fish and Wildlife division. SAE has also presented its project during a 
community meeting in the village of Nuiqsut, to discuss the planned 
activities. The discussions included SAE's project description, the 
POC, resolution of potential conflicts, and proposed operational 
window. These meetings helped to identify any subsistence conflicts. 
The following meetings were conducted:

 Nuiqsut: November, 2014 (Job Fair)
 Nuiqsut: January, 2015 (Project Presentation)
 AEWC: December, 2014 (2015 planned projects)
 Barrow (NSB): March, 2015 (Pre Application Meeting)
 Barrow: March, 2015 (Planning Commission Meeting)
 AEWC: February, 2015 (Project Presentation)

    In addition, SAE scheduled the following meeting in the near 
future:

 Nuqsut: July, 2015 (update Meeting)
 KSOP: July 2015 (Presentation)

    Stage 2: SAE incorporated meaningful requests to mitigate concerns 
into operations, including signing a CAA and providing weekly updates 
to the Kuukpikmiut Subsistence Oversight Panel (KSOP). SAE plans to 
have a review of permit stipulations and a permit matrix developed for 
the crews. The means of communications and contacts list have been 
developed and implemented into operations. Communications will be 
handled within the CAA and directly with Nuiqsut Whalers. 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 does occur with project activities and 
subsistence hunting, the SAs 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 (which may include

[[Page 40036]]

ceasing operations during the whale hunt).
    In addition, 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 2015 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 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 around August 25 to close of the fall bowhead 
whale hunt in Kaktovik and Nuiqsut, based on the actual hunt dates. 
From around August 10 to August 25, based on the actual hunt dates, 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 around 
August 25 to close of fall bowhead whale hunting outside the Barrier 
Island in Nuiqsut, based on the actual hunt dates.
    [cir] Canning River to Pt. Storkerson: No seismic survey from 
around August 25 to the close of bowhead whale subsistence hunting in 
Nuiqsut, based on the actual hunt dates.
     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, 2015. 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.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Preliminary 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 proposed 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 proposed mitigation and monitoring 
measures, NMFS has determined that there will not be an unmitigable 
adverse impact on subsistence uses from SAE's proposed activities.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Within the project area, the bowhead whale is listed as endangered 
and the ringed seal is listed as threatened under the ESA. NMFS' 
Permits and Conservation Division initiated consultation with staff in 
NMFS' Alaska Region Protected Resources Division 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. In June 2015, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion, 
and concluded that the issuance of the IHA associated with SAE's 2015 
3D seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea is not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the endangered bowhead, humpback and

[[Page 40037]]

the threatened Arctic sub-species of ringed seal. No critical habitat 
has been designated for these species, therefore none will be affected.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    NMFS prepared an EA that includes an analysis of potential 
environmental effects associated with NMFS' issuance of an IHA to SAE 
to take marine mammals incidental to conducting a 3D seismic survey in 
the Beaufort Sea, Alaska. NMFS has finalized the EA and prepared a 
Finding of No Significant Impact for this action. Therefore, 
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary. 
NMFS' draft EA was available to the public for a 30-day comment period 
before it was finalized.

Authorization

    As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to SAE 
for the take of marine mammals, by Level B and Level A harassments, 
incidental to conducting a 3D OBN seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea 
during the 2015 open-water season, provided the previously mentioned 
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

    Dated: July 6, 2015.
Perry Gayaldo,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-16966 Filed 7-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P