[Federal Register: April 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 75)]
[Notices]
[Page 19695-19699]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19ap07-20]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 032207A]
Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; On-
ice Geotechnical Operations in the Beaufort Sea
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that an Incidental
Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment,
incidental to conducting an on-ice marine geotechnical operations in
the U.S. Beaufort Sea, has been issued to ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc
(CPAI) for a period of one year.
DATES: This authorization is effective from April 15, 2007, until
April 14, 2008.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the application, IHA, an Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the proposed action, and a list of references used in this
document may be obtained by writing to P. Michael Payne, Chief,
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning one of the contacts
listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2289, ext 137 or Brad Smith, Alaska Region,
NMFS, (907) 271-5006.
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 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.
[[Page 19696]]
Permission shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have
a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses, and that the permissible methods of
taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible
impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ''...an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.''
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process
by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization
to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment.
Except for certain categories of 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].
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS
review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment
period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of
marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS
must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.
Summary of Request
On November 29, 2006, NMFS received an application from CPAI for
the taking, by harassment, of a small number of ringed seals (Phoca
hispida) incidental to conducting geotechnical portions of a site
clearance survey just north of Cross Island, in the spring of 2007. The
site clearance location will be on the outer continental shelf (OCS)
and State of Alaska leases in the U.S. Beaufort Sea. The proposed
operation will be active 24 hours per day and use a conventional
geotechnical drilling rig.
The purpose of the site clearance is to confirm that the seafloor
has soil and surface characteristics that will support the safe set-
down of a drill rig, and long-term occupation of the site by such a
vessel.
The geographic region of the proposed geotechnical activity
encompasses 2 13 km\2\ (5 mi\2\) areas in the south central Alaska
Beaufort Sea on the fast ice. The region is about 3 miles (4.8 km)
north of Cross Island at approximately 147[deg]57' W and 70[deg]32' N.
There will also be a sea ice route directly from Deadhorse to the site,
which will be about 24 km (15 miles) long and 0.01 km (35 ft) wide. The
closest Eskimo village to the site clearance location is Nuiqsut, which
is over 60 miles (97 km) away. Water depths in the proposed project
area are typically less than 60 ft (18.2 m).
The proposed geotechnical operation would use a small drill rig
that runs either 5-ft (1.5-m) long augers for soil samples or 10-ft (3-
m) jointed pipe to recover core samples. The drill rig would use cone
penatrometers for cone penetration tests. Sea water circulation and
occasionally mud systems would be used on the drill rig to stabilize
the hole. This work is part of an overall shallow hazards investigation
of the project.
CPAI initially planned to conduct the proposed project between
February and April, 2007, however, it has postponed it until April,
2007. If the proposed project cannot be completed by the end of May
2007 due to ice conditions, CPAI will resume the project in February
2008, and complete it in April 2008, under this IHA.
A detailed description of these activities was published in the
Federal Register on January 22, 2007 (72 FR 2653). No other changes
have been made to these proposed activities except the project time
described above.
Comments and Responses
A notice of receipt and request for 30-day public comment on the
application and proposed authorization was published on January 22,
2007 (72 FR 2653). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS
received the following comments from one private citizen, the North
Slope Borough (NSB), and the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission).
Comment 1: One private citizen opposes the project out of concern
that marine mammals would be killed by the proposed project in the
Beaufort Sea.
Response: As described in detail in the Federal Register notice of
receipt of the application (72 FR 2653, January 22, 2007), no marine
mammal will be killed or injured as a result of the proposed on-ice
geotechnical operations by CPAI. The project would only result Level B
behavioral harassment of a small number of ringed seals. No take by
Level A harassment (injury) or death is anticipated or authorized from
this project.
Comment 2: The Commission recommends that NMFS issue the IHA to
CPAI, provided that CPAI be required to use trained dogs for locating
ringed seal lairs and other structures. Both the Commission and the NSB
recommend that trained dogs be used to detect and locate ringed seal
lairs and other structures. The NSB further states that a single native
hunter will not be sufficient for locating lairs and that seal
breathing holes are not confined to deformed ice or pressure ridges.
Response: While NMFS believes that the use of trained dogs to
locate ringed seal lairs during on-ice geotechnical operations is the
best method to detect ringed seals in winter, NMFS also believes that
the use of experienced subsistence hunters should be an alternative
before ringed seal pupping season, starting on March 15, if the CPAI
cannot complete the project by then. As for the proposed project, only
a limited number of holes in and near a small rig footprint would be
drilled, one single experienced hunter is sufficient for detecting seal
lairs before March 15. CPAI requested use of an Inupiat hunter since it
was successfully usedat McCovey for a rolligon operation. Allowing a
proven method of using an experienced hunter prior to the ringed seal
pupping season is a reasonable alternative to trained dogs. Even though
experienced hunters may not be as efficient to detect breathing holes,
NMFS does not believe this will cause any mortality or seriously injure
ringed seals. However, for activities that occur after March 15th, CPAI
will use trained dogs to locate seal lairs.
Comment 3: The Commission assumes that CPAI has explored the need
for an authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to
take polar bears (Ursus maritimus) incidental to the proposed
activities. If not, the Commission states, NMFS may wish to advise CPAI
to do so.
Response: CPAI states that it has applied for an IHA for the
incidental takes of polar bears from the FWS, and that the permit is
pending.
Comment 4: The Commission recommends that the authorization specify
that the operations be suspended immediately if a dead or injured
ringed seal is found in the vicinity of the operations and the death or
injury could be attributable to the applicant's activities. The
Commission further recommends that any suspension should remain in
place until NMFS has (1) reviewed the situation and determined that
further deaths or serious injuries are unlikely or (2) issued
regulations authorizing such takes under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the
MMPA.
Response: NMFS agrees, and the IHA condition specified that
operations be
[[Page 19697]]
suspended if a mortality or injury of a marine mammal is detected that
may be the result of CPAI's activity.
Comment 5: The NSB points out that CPAI did not provide noise
information associated with cone penetration test (CPT). The NSB
questions whether CPT is somewhat similar to pile driving, which could
create a substantial amount of sound in the environment.
Response: CPAI states that the CPT work is accomplished using
hydraulics. Consistent pressure, provided by hydraulics, is necessary
to accurately measure soil properties. Therefore, CPAI states that
noise levels generated by CPT work is negligible compared to that of
pile driving.
Comment 6: The NSB questions NMFS' conclusion that the effects of
the proposed geotechnical operations would be short-term within the
context of disturbance of ringed seals. The NSB further questions how
long any disturbance of seals as a result of the proposed operations
might be expected to persist.
Response: As described in detail in the Federal Register notice (72
FR 2653, January 22, 2007) the proposed geotechnical operations would
only last for two weeks during a 3-month period within two small areas
of 13 km2 (5 mi2). The analyses of the proposed on-ice geotechnical
operations showed the potential to disturb and temporarily displace
some ringed seals within the proposed project areas during this short
time period. Therefore, NMFS believes that the effects of this action
are expected to be limited to short-term and localized behavioral
changes involving relatively small numbers of ringed seals.
Comment 7: The NSB points out that in CPAI's application, CPAI
suggested it only needs an IHA if the work extends past the later part
of March, ``prior to the birthing season for ringed seal pups.'' The
NSB states that ringed seals are present in the CPAI's operational area
throughout the ice-covered season and not just from late March through
the ice-covered period. The NSB further states that it is extremely
likely that CPAI's operations are causing Level B harassment of ringed
seals, assuming they have already begun, and will have impacts in
March.
Response: Generally, NMFS recommends IHAs for activities that occur
after the start of pupping season, and with the exception of ice road
construction, activities conducted prior to that time do not require
IHAs. Considering the number of other activities that take place on the
ice without IHAs (e.g., snow mobiles), NMFS considers this appropriate.
However, CPAI is applying for an IHA for the entire period when its on-
ice operations would be conducted. CAPI indicated that it has not
started its on-ice geotechnical operations and that it will not do so
prior to obtaining an IHA.
Comment 8: The NSB does not agree that ringed seals are the only
marine mammals that might be taken incidentally as a result of CPAI's
on-ice operations. The NSB is concerned that bowhead whales (Balaena
mysticetus) and belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) could be potentially
taken as a result of the proposed action. NSB states that bowheads and
belugas typically begin passing by Barrow in mid-April, and that in a
typical year, bowheads and belugas could be off the project area by
mid-April within several days of passing Barrow. The NSB further states
that in 2007, ice is very light and there are considerable areas of
open water between Barrow and the Bering Sea. The NSB also states that
bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) will also be in the Beaufort Sea in
April.
Response: The nature of the proposed on-ice geotechnical operations
would require ice thickness of at least 50 in (1.3 m) to support the
heavy equipment and personnel. This is not typical habitat for cetacean
species, including bowhead and beluga whales, thus, no cetacean species
is likely to be found in the vicinity of the project area. In addition,
the proposed project will not use any impact source sources nor
airguns, so the generated underwater noises due to the activities are
negligible and will not impact on any cetacean species in the vicinity.
CPAI will not operate in the area where ice condition is getting thin
to allow open lead due to safety concerns.
In regards to bearded seals, NMFS does not believe these species
would be affected as a result of the proposed on-ice geotechnical
operations due to their rare occurrence in the proposed project areas,
and the small size of these areas.
Comment 9: The NSB points out that CPAI primarily relied on ringed
seal data collected at the Northstar development island (Moulton et
al., 2002) for their estimates of numbers of takes of ringed seals.
CPAI states that these data are helpful but given that CPAI's
activities are in deep water and farther offshore, there is potential
for actually a greater numbers of seals in the project area. The NSB
suggests that site-specific data on ringed seals are needed for CPAI's
project area.
Response: In reviewing and making a determination on the issuance
of an IHA to SOI for its proposed on-ice R&D project, NMFS used the
most recent available and best scientific data regarding ringed seal
density in the proposed project area from works conducted by Kelly and
Quakenbush (1990), Frost an Lowry (1999), and Moulton et al., (2002),
which was based on studies at the Northstar development. These studies
cover a large area of the Beaufort Sea, and the ringed seal population
estimates derived from these studies are representative of this species
abundance in the proposed project area. NMFS believes that these data
provide the best scientific information on ringed seal density and
abundance in the proposed project area.
Description of the Marine Mammals Potentially Affected by the Activity
Ringed seals are the only species of marine mammal that may be
present in the proposed project area during the site clearance period.
Ringed seals are not listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or
designated as depleted under the MMPA. Other marine mammal species
under NMFS' jurisdiction that seasonally inhabit the Beaufort Sea, but
are not anticipated to occur in the project area during site clearance
operations, include the bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus), beluga
whales (Delphinapterus leucas), bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus),
and spotted seals (Phoca largha). While some of these species begin to
enter Beaufort Sea off Point Barrow from the Chukchi Sea during April,
the project area is over 160 nm (296 km) east of Point Barrow, thereby
making it highly unlikely these species would occur in the project area
during the proposed operations. Polar bears also frequent in the
Beaufort Sea, but they are not addressed in this application because
they are managed by the FWS. CPAI is applying for an IHA for the
incidental take of polar bears from the FWS.
A detailed description of ringed seals can be found in the Angliss
and Outlaw (2005), which is available at the following URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2005.pdf.
A more detailed description
of this species within the proposed action area is provided in the
January 22, 2007, Federal Register (72 FR 2653). Therefore, it is not
repeated here.
Potential Effects on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
The proposed on-ice geotechnical operations have the potential to
disturb, including the temporary displacement of, some ringed seals
within the proposed project area. Incidental take may result from
short-term disturbances by noise and physical activities associated
with soil borings, CPT, and rolligon supported support and logistics
activities. Pup mortality could occur if
[[Page 19698]]
any of these animals were nursing and displacement were protracted.
However, it is unlikely that a nursing female would abandon her pup
given the normal levels of disturbance from the proposed activities,
potential predators, and the typical movement patterns of ringed seal
pups among different holes. Seals also use as many as four lairs spaced
as far as 3,437 m (11,276 ft) apart. In addition, seals have multiple
breathing holes. Pups may use more holes than adults, but the holes are
generally closer together than those used by adults. This indicates
that adult seals and pups can move away from site clearance activity.
All anticipated takes would be Level B harassment, involving short
term, temporary changes in behavior including displacement by ringed
seals. The number of seals estimated to be taken is calculated based on
the most recent density data obtained during ringed seal surveys
conducted within the geographic area of the planned operation. Moulton
et al. (2002) reported that ringed seal densities on landfast ice of
Alaskan Beaufort area range from 0.39 - 0.63 seal/km\2\.
The size of the proposed project area is 26 km\2\ plus 0.32 km\2\
for the travel corridor between the site and Deadhorse with water
depths greater than 3 m (9.8 ft) below the sea ice. Areas where water
depths are less than 3 m (9.8 ft) were excluded from the calculation
since ringed seals typically do not occur in these shallow areas
(Moulton et al., 2002). The length of the travel corridor associated is
about 16 km (10 mi) and the calculation for its width was doubled (70
ft or 200 m) to account for adjustment of the corridor during the
program due to any changes in ice condition. Therefore, it is estimated
that between 10 - 17 ringed seals could be taken by Level B harassment
as a result of the proposed geotechnical operations. This estimated
take number represents less than 0.004 - 0.007 percent of the ringed
seal population (estimated minimum 249,000 seals) in the eastern
Chukchi and Beaufort seas area. The actual take is likely to be lower
as the IHA requires mitigation and monitoring measures to be
implemented in the proposed action. No take by Level A harassment
(injury) or death is expected or authorized.
The proposed geotechnical operation is not expected to cause any
permanent impact on habitat and the prey used by ringed seals. All
surface activities will be on sea ice, which will breakup and drift
away following spring breakup. Any spills on the ice would be small in
size and cleaned up before completing the operations. Similarly, all
materials from the camp and drilling activities will be removed from
the site before completion of operations. Drilling will have a
negligible impact on the seafloor, since the bore holes will be small
and widely spaced, and they will naturally fill in over time due to
sediment movement by currents. The operation should have no effect on
ringed seal prey species since most disturbances will be on sea ice.
Areas containing ice conditions suitable for lairs will be avoided by
the rolligons to prevent any destruction of the habitat.
Mitigation and Monitoring
All activities will be conducted as far as practicable from any
observed ringed seal lairs. Upon commencement of the on-ice
geotechnical project, CPAI will establish a route along the proposed
travel corridor and work areas to discourage ringed seals from building
lairs within the corridor later.
For all activities conducted after March 15, trained dogs will be
used to detect and locate ringed seal lairs and other seal structures
in the travel corridor and work areas where water depth exceeds 3 m
(9.8 ft) under the ice. For activities conducted before March 15, an
experienced Inupiat hunter will be hired to serve as a marine mammal
observer (MMO) to locate potential lairs and breathing holes in the
travel corridor and work areas where water depth exceeds 3 m (9.8 ft)
under the ice. The MMO will ride in the lead rolligon. Locations will
be flagged, Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates taken and then
delineated on a map.
On subsequent trips after seal surveys, rolligon drivers will use
the map, pre-programmed GPS coordinates and/or flags to avoid potential
lair habitat and breathing holes when traveling the corridor and work
areas. The completed map will be provided to NMFS.
Potential Effects on Subsistence
The primary subsistence village in the region is Nuiqsut, which is
over 60 miles (97 km) away from the proposed project area. Most seal
hunting by the village is off the Colville river Delta, between Fish
Creek to the west and Pingok Island to the east (Fuller and George,
1997). Seal hunting predominately occurs in the open water during
summer, when seals are more readily accessible from small boats (Fuller
and George, 1997). In addition, almost all subsistence seal hunts occur
during June through August. If a subsistence hunter is encountered in
the project area, action will be taken to divert the rolligon away from
the hunter. In addition, CPAI will meet with Nuiqsut representatives
before commencing geotechnical operations in 2007. The meeting(s) will
fulfill the requirement in 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12). The proposed
operations will be modified, where possible and practical, to reflect
the concerns of the villages and hunters. Taking into account this and
all mitigation and monitoring, the proposed geotechnical operations
will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on availablity of marine
mammals for subsistence uses.
Reporting
A final report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of
completing the geotechnical project. The report will contain detailed
description of any marine mammal, by species, number, age class, and
sex if possible, that is sighted in the vicinity of the proposed
project area; location and time of the animal sighted; whether the
animal exhibits a behavioral reaction to any on-ice activities or is
injured or killed.
ESA
NMFS has determined that no species listed as threatened or
endangered under the ESA will be affected by this activity and issuing
an incidental harassment authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA to CPAI for this on-ice geotechnical project.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment in March 2007 and issued
a Finding of No Significant Impact on the proposed action.
Determinations
For the reasons discussed in this document and in the identified
supporting documents, NMFS has determined that the impact of the on-ice
geotechnical operations would result, at worst, in the Level B
harassment of small numbers of ringed seals, and that such taking will
have a negligible impact on this species. NMFS also finds that the
action will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability
of this species for taking for subsistence uses.
In addition, no take by Level A harassment (injury) or death is
anticipated or authorized, and harassment takes should be at the lowest
level practicable due to incorporation of the mitigation measures
described in this document.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to CPAI for the Level B harassment of small
number of ringed seals incidental to conducting on-ice geotechnical
operations in the U.S. Beaufort Sea, provided the
[[Page 19699]]
previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated.
Dated: April 13, 2007.
James H. Lecky,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-7471 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S