11726 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE specified above, telephoning the contact After receiving comments and questions listed below (see FOR FURTHER from NMFS, Shell revised its IHA National Oceanic and Atmospheric INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the application and 4MP on December 17, Administration internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 2014. NMFS determined that the pr/permits/incidental.htm. Documents application was adequate and complete RIN 0648–XD655 cited in this notice may also be viewed, on January 5, 2015. Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to by appointment, during regular business The proposed activity would occur Specified Activities; Taking Marine hours, at the aforementioned address. between July and October 2015. The Mammals Incidental to an Exploration FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: following specific aspects of the Drilling Program in the Chukchi Sea, Shane Guan, Office of Protected proposed activities are likely to result in Alaska Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. the take of marine mammals: Exploration drilling, supply and drilling SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries support vessels using dynamic Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Background positioning, mudline cellar Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the construction, anchor handling, ice Commerce. MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct management activities, and zero-offset ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental the Secretary of Commerce to allow, vertical seismic profiling (ZVSP) harassment authorization; request for upon request, the incidental, but not activities. comments. intentional, taking of small numbers of Shell has requested an authorization marine mammals by U.S. citizens who to take 13 marine mammal species by SUMMARY: NMFS received an engage in a specified activity (other than Level B harassment. However, the application from Shell Gulf of Mexico commercial fishing) within a specified narwhal (Monodon monoceros) is not Inc. (Shell) for an Incidental Harassment geographical region if certain findings expected to be found in the activity Authorization (IHA) to take marine are made and either regulations are area. Therefore, NMFS is proposing to mammals, by harassment, incidental to issued or, if the taking is limited to authorize take of 12 marine mammal offshore exploration drilling on Outer harassment, a notice of a proposed species, by Level B harassment, Continental Shelf (OCS) leases in the authorization is provided to the public incidental to Shell’s offshore Chukchi Sea, Alaska. Pursuant to the for review. exploration drilling in the Chukchi Sea. Marine Mammal Protection Act An authorization for incidental These species are: beluga whale (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments takings shall be granted if NMFS finds (Delphinapterus leucas); bowhead on its proposal to issue an IHA to Shell that the taking will have a negligible whale (Balaena mysticetus); gray whale to take, by Level B harassment only, 12 impact on the species or stock(s), will (Eschrichtius robustus); killer whale species of marine mammals during the not have an unmitigable adverse impact (Orcinus orca); minke whale specified activity. on the availability of the species or (Balaenoptera acutorostrata); fin whale DATES: Comments and information must stock(s) for subsistence uses (where (Balaenoptera physalus); humpback be received no later than April 3, 2015. relevant), and if the permissible whale (Megaptera novaeangliae); harbor ADDRESSES: Comments on the methods of taking and requirements porpoise (Phocoena phocoena); bearded application should be addressed to Jolie pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring seal (Erignathus barbatus); ringed seal Harrison, Chief, Permits and and reporting of such takings are set (Phoca hispida); spotted seal (P. largha); Conservation Division, Office of forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible and ribbon seal (Histriophoca fasciata). In 2012, NMFS issued two IHAs to Protected Resources, National Marine impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘an Shell to conducted two exploratory Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West impact resulting from the specified drilling activities at exploration wells in Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The activity that cannot be reasonably the Beaufort (77 FR 27284; May 9, 2012) mailbox address for providing email expected to, and is not reasonably likely and Chukchi (77 FR 27322; May 9, comments is [email protected]. to, adversely affect the species or stock 2012) Seas, Alaska, during the 2012 NMFS is not responsible for email through effects on annual rates of Arctic open-water season (July through comments sent to addresses other than recruitment or survival.’’ October). Shell’s proposed 2015 the one provided here. Comments sent Except with respect to certain exploration drilling program is similar via email, including all attachments, activities not pertinent here, the MMPA to those conducted in 2012. In must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: any act of December 2012, Shell submitted two Instructions: All comments received pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) additional IHA applications to take are a part of the public record and will has the potential to injure a marine marine mammals incidental to its generally be posted to http:// mammal or marine mammal stock in the proposed exploratory drilling in www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has Beaufort and Chukchi Seas during the incidental.htm without change. All the potential to disturb a marine 2013 open-water season. However, Shell Personal Identifying Information (for mammal or marine mammal stock in the withdrew its application in February example, name, address, etc.) wild by causing disruption of behavioral 2013. voluntarily submitted by the commenter patterns, including, but not limited to, may be publicly accessible. Do not migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, Description of the Specified Activity submit Confidential Business feeding, or sheltering [Level B Overview Information or otherwise sensitive or harassment]. protected information. Shell proposes to conduct exploration A copy of the application, which Summary of Request drilling at up to four exploration drill contains several attachments, including On September 18, 2014, Shell sites at Shell’s Burger Prospect on the Shell’s marine mammal mitigation and submitted an application to NMFS for OCS leases acquired from the U.S. monitoring plan (4MP) and Plan of the taking of marine mammals Department of Interior, Bureau of Ocean Cooperation, used in this document may incidental to exploration drilling Energy Management (BOEM). The be obtained by writing to the address activities in the Chukchi Sea, Alaska. exploration drilling planned for the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11727

2015 season is a continuation of the drill sites except when mobilizing and vessels may have to range beyond these Chukchi Sea exploration drilling demobilizing to and from the Chukchi distances depending on ice conditions. program that began in 2012, and Sea, transiting between drill sites, and Up to three anchor handlers will resulted in the completion of a partial temporarily moving off location if it is support the drilling units. These vessels well at the location known as Burger A. determined ice conditions require such will enter and exit the Chukchi Sea with Exploration drilling will be done a move to ensure the safety of personnel or ahead of the drilling units, and will pursuant to Shell’s Chukchi Sea and/or the environment. generally remain in the vicinity of the Exploration Plan, Revision 2 (EP). drilling units during the drilling season. Shell plans to use two drilling units, Detailed Description of Activities When the vessels are not anchor the drillship Noble Discoverer The specific activities that may result handling, they will be available to (Discoverer) and semi-submersible in incidental taking of marine mammals provide other general support. Two of Transocean Polar Pioneer (Polar based on the IHA application are the three anchor handlers may be used Pioneer) to drill at up to four locations limited to Shell’s exploration drilling to perform secondary ice management on the Burger Prospect. Both drilling program and related activities. tasks if needed. units will be attended to by support Activities include exploration drilling The planned exploration drilling vessels for the purposes of ice sounds, MLC construction, anchor activities will use three offshore supply management, anchor handling, oil spill handling while mooring a drilling unit vessels (OSVs) for resupply of the response (OSR), refueling, support to at a drill site, vessels on DP when drilling units and support vessels. drilling units, and resupply. The tending to a drilling unit, ice Drilling materials, food, fuel, and other drilling units will be accompanied by an management, and zero-offset vertical supplies will be picked up in Dutch expanded number of support vessels, seismic profile (ZVSP) surveys. Harbor (with possible minor resupply aircraft, and oil spill response vessels coming out of Kotzebue) and (OSRV) greater than the number (1) Exploration Drilling transported to the drilling units and deployed during the 2012 drilling In 2015 Shell plans to continue its support vessels. season. exploration drilling program on BOEM Shell plans to use up to two science vessels; one for each drilling unit, from Dates and Duration Alaska OCS leases at drill sites greater than 64 mi (103 km) from the Chukchi which sampling of ocean water and Shell anticipates that its exploration Sea coast during the 2015 drilling sediments prior to and following drilling program will occur between season. Shell plans to conduct drilling discharges would be conducted. July 1 and approximately October 31, exploration drilling activities at up to The science vessel specifications are 2015. The drilling units will move four drill sites at the Burger Prospect based on larger OSVs, but smaller through the Bering Strait and into the utilizing two drilling units, the drillship vessels may be used. Chukchi Sea on or after July 1, 2015, Discoverer and the semi-submersible Two tugs will tow the Polar Pioneer and then onto the Burger Prospect as Polar Pioneer. from Dutch Harbor to the Burger soon as ice and weather conditions Prospect. After the Polar Pioneer is allow. Exploration drilling activities During 2012, Shell drilled a partial well at the Burger A drill site. Drilling moored, the tugs will remain in the will continue until about October 31, vicinity of the drilling units to help 2015, the drilling units and support at Burger A did not reach a depth at which a ZVSP survey would be move either drilling unit in the event vessels will exit the Chukchi Sea at the they need to be moved off of a drilling conclusion of the exploration drilling conducted. Consequently one was not performed. site due to ice or any other event. season. Transit entirely out of the Shell may deploy a MLC ROV system Chukchi Sea by all vessels associated A mudline cellar (MLC) will be from an OSV type vessel that could be with exploration drilling may take well constructed at each drill site. The MLCs used to construct MLCs prior to a into the month of November due to ice, will be constructed in the seafloor using drilling units arriving. If used, this weather, and sea states. a large diameter bit operated by vessel would be located at a drill site on hydraulic motors and suspended from Specified Geographic Region the Burger Prospect. When not in use, the Discoverer or Polar Pioneer. the vessel would be outside of the All drill sites at which exploration (2) Support Vessels Chukchi Sea drilling would occur in 2015 will be at Shell’s Burger Prospect (see Figure 1–1 During exploration drilling, the (3) Oil Spill Response Vessels on page 1–2 of Shell’s IHA application). Discoverer and Polar Pioneer will be The oil spill response (OSR) vessel Shell has identified a total of six supported by the types of vessels listed types supporting the exploration Chukchi Sea lease blocks on the Burger in Table 1–1 of Shell’s IHA application. drilling program are listed in Table 1.2 Prospect. All six drill sites are located These drilling units would be of Shell’s IHA application. more than 64 mi (103 km) off the accompanied by greater number of One dedicated OSR barge and on-site Chukchi Sea coast. During 2015, the support vessels and oil spill response oil spill response vessel (OSRV) will be Discoverer and Polar Pioneer will be vessels than were deployed by Shell staged in the vicinity of the drilling used to conduct exploration drilling during 2012 exploration drilling in the unit(s) when drilling into potential activities at up to four exploration drill Chukchi Sea. liquid hydrocarbon bearing zones. This sites. As with any Arctic exploration Two ice management vessels will will enable the OSRV to respond to a program, weather and ice conditions support the drilling units. These vessels spill and provide containment, will dictate actual operations. will enter and exit the Chukchi Sea with recovery, and storage for the initial Activities associated with the or ahead of the drilling units, and will response period in the unlikely event of Chukchi Sea exploration drilling generally remain in the vicinity of the a well control incident. program and analyzed herein include drilling units during the drilling season. The OSR barge, associated tug, and operation of the Discoverer, Polar Ice management and ice scouting is OSRV possess sufficient storage Pioneer, and associated support vessels. expected to occur at distances of 20 mi capacity to provide containment, The drilling units will remain at the (32 km) and 30 mi (48 km) respectively recovery, and storage for the initial location of the designated exploration from drill site locations. However, these response period. Shell plans to use two

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11728 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

oil storage tankers (OSTs). An OST will Barrow or Fairbanks. It is anticipated will be 50–200 ft (15–61 m) from the be staged at the Burger Prospect. The that there will be one round trip flight wellhead depending on crane location, OST will hold fuel for Shell’s drilling every three weeks. and reach a depth of approximately 10– units, support vessels, and have space A fixed wing aircraft, Gulfstream 23 ft (3–7 m) below the water surface. for storage of recovered liquids in the Aero-Commander (or similar), will be The VSI along with its four receivers unlikely event of a well control used for photographic surveys of marine will be temporarily anchored in the incident. A second OST will be mammals. These flights will take place wellbore at depth. stationed in the Chukchi Sea and sited daily depending on weather conditions. The sound source will be pressured such that it will be able to respond to Flight paths are located in the Marine up to 3,000 pounds per square inch a well control event before the first Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation (psi), and activated 5–7 times at tanker reaches its recovered liquid Plan (4MP). approximately 20-second intervals. The capacity. An additional Gulfstream Aero VSI will then be moved to the next The tug and barge will be used for Commander may be used to provide ice interval of the wellbore and re- nearshore OSR. The nearshore tug and reconnaissance flights to monitor ice anchored, after which the airgun array barge will be moored near Goodhope conditions around the Burger Prospect. will again be activated 5–7 times. This Bay, Kotzebue Sound. The nearshore tug Typically, the flights will focus on the process will be repeated until the entire and barge will also carry response ice conditions within 50 mi (80 km) of wellbore is surveyed. The interval equipment, including one 47 ft. (14 m) the drill sites, but more extensive ice between anchor points for the VSI is skimming vessel, 34 ft. (10 m) reconnaissance may occur beyond 50 mi usually 200–300 ft. (61–91 m). A normal workboats, mini-barges, boom and (80 km). ZVSP survey is conducted over a period duplex skimming units for nearshore These flights will occur at an altitude of about 10–14 hours depending on the recovery and possibly support nearshore of approximately 3,000 ft. (915 m). depth of the well and the number of protection. The nearshore tug and barge (5) Vertical Seismic Profile anchoring points. will also carry designated response (6) Ice Management and Forecasting personnel and will mobilize to recovery Shell may conduct a geophysical areas, deploy equipment, and begin survey referred to as a vertical seismic The exploration drilling program is response operations. profile (VSP) survey at each drill site located in an area that is characterized where a well is drilled in 2015. During by active sea ice movement, ice (4) Aircraft VSP surveys, an airgun array is scouring, and storm surges. In Offshore operations will be serviced deployed at a location near or adjacent anticipation of potential ice hazards that by up to three helicopters operated out to the drilling units, while receivers are may be encountered, Shell will of an onshore support base in Barrow. placed (temporarily anchored) in the implement a Drilling Ice Management The helicopters are not yet contracted. wellbore. The sound source (airgun Plan (DIMP) to ensure real-time ice and Sikorsky S–92s (or similar) will be used array) is fired, and the reflected sonic weather forecasting that will identify to transport crews between the onshore waves are recorded by receivers conditions that could put operations at support base, the drilling units and (geophones) located in the wellbore. risk, allowing Shell to modify its support vessels with helidecks. The The geophones, typically a string of activities accordingly. helicopters will also be used to haul them, are then raised up to the next Shell’s ice management fleet will small amounts of food, materials, interval in the wellbore and the process consist of four vessels: two ice equipment, samples and waste between is repeated until the entire wellbore has management vessels and two anchor vessels and the shorebase. been surveyed. The purpose of the VSP handler/icebreakers. Ice management Approximately 40 Barrow to Burger is to gather geophysical information at that is necessary for safe operations Prospect round trip flights will occur various depths, which can then be used during Shell’s planned exploration each week to support the additional to tie-in or groundtruth geophysical drilling program will occur far out in crew change necessities for an information from the previous seismic the OCS, remote from the vicinities of additional drilling unit, support vessels, surveys with geological data collected any routine marine vessel traffic in the and required sampling. within the wellbore. Chukchi Sea, thereby resulting in no The route chosen will depend on Shell will be conducting a particular threat to public safety or services that weather conditions and whether form of VSP referred to as a zero-offset occur near to shore. Shell vessels will subsistence users are active on land or VSP (ZVSP), in which the sound source also communicate movements and at sea. These routes may be modified is maintained at a constant location near activities through the 2015 North Slope depending on weather and subsistence the wellbore (Figure 1–2 in IHA Communications Centers (Com Centers). uses. application). Shell may use one of two Management of ice will occur during the Shell will also have a dedicated typical sound sources: (1) A three- drilling season predominated by open helicopter for Search and Rescue (SAR). airgun array consisting of three, 150 water, thus it will not contribute to ice The SAR helicopter is expected to be a cubic inches (in3) (2,458 cm3) airguns, hazards, such as ridging, override, or Sikorsky S–92 (or similar). This aircraft or (2) a two-airgun array consisting of pileup in an offshore or nearshore will stay grounded at the Barrow shore two, 250 in3 (4,097 cm3) airguns. environment. base location except during training Typical receivers would consist of a The ice-management/anchor handling drills, emergencies, and other non- standard wireline four-level vertical vessels will manage the ice by deflecting routine events. The SAR helicopter and seismic imager (VSI) tool, which has any ice floes that could affect the crew plan training flights for four receivers 50 ft (15.2 m) apart. Discoverer or Polar Pioneer when they approximately 40 hr/month. A ZVSP survey is normally conducted are drilling or anchor mooring buoys A fixed wing propeller or turboprop at each well after total depth is reached, even if the drilling units are not aircraft, such as the Saab 340–B, but may be conducted at a shallower anchored at a drill site. When managing Beechcraft 1900, or De Havilland Dash depth. For each survey, Shell would ice, the ice management vessels will 8, will be used to transport crews, deploy the sound source (airgun array) generally operate upwind of the drilling materials, and equipment between over the side of the Discoverer or Polar units, since the wind and currents Wainwright and hub airports such as Pioneer with a crane, the sound source contribute to the direction of ice

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11729

movement. Ice reconnaissance or ice movements of the vessel using lower gray, beluga, and killer whales and scouting forays may occur out to 48.3km power and therefore slower propeller spotted seals are listed as endangered or (30mi) from the drilling units and are rotation speed (i.e., lower cavitation), are proposed for listing under the ESA; conducted by the ice management allowing for fewer repositions of the however, none of those stocks or vessels into ice that may move into the vessel, and thereby reducing cavitation populations occur in the proposed vicinity of exploration drilling effects in the water. Occasionally, there activity area. Both the walrus and the activities. This will provide the vessel may be multi-year ice features that polar bear are managed by the U.S. Fish and shore-based ice advisors with the would be managed at a much slower and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are information required to decide whether speed than that used to manage first- not considered further in this proposed or not active ice management is year ice. IHA notice. necessary. The actual distances from the As detailed in Shell’s Drilling Ice Of these species, 12 are expected to drilling units and the patterns of ice Management Plan (DIMP), in 2012 occur in the area of Shell’s proposed management (distances between vessels, Shell’s ice management vessels operations. These species are: The and width of the swath in which ice conducted ice management to protect bowhead, gray, humpback, minke, fin, management occurs) will be determined moorings for the Discoverer after the killer, and beluga whales; harbor by the ice floe speed, size, thickness, drilling unit was moved off of the porpoise; and the ringed, spotted, and character, and wind forecast. Burger A well. This work consisted of bearded, and ribbon seals. Beluga, Ice floe frequency and intensity is re-directing flows as necessary to avoid bowhead, and gray whales, harbor unpredictable and could range from no potential impact with mooring buoys, porpoise, and ringed, bearded, and ice to ice densities that exceed ice- without the necessity to break up multi- spotted seals are anticipated to be management capabilities, in which case year ice flowbergs. Actual breaking of encountered more than the other marine drilling activities might be stopped and ice may need to occur in the event that mammal species mentioned here. The the drilling units disconnected from ice conditions in the immediate vicinity marine mammal species that is likely to their moorings and moved off site. The of activities create a safety hazard for be encountered most widely (in space Discoverer was disconnected from its the drilling unit, or its moorings. In and time) throughout the period of the moorings once during the 2012 season such a circumstance, operations proposed drilling program is the ringed to avoid a potential encounter with personnel will follow the guidelines seal. Encounters with bowhead and gray multi-year ice flows of sufficient size to established in the DIMP to evaluate ice whales are expected to be limited to halt activities. Advance scouting of ice conditions and make the formal particular seasons, as discussed later in primarily north and east of the Burger designation of a hazardous ice alert this document. Where available, Shell A well by the ice management vessels condition, which would trigger the used density estimates from peer- did not detect ice of sufficient size or procedures that govern any actual reviewed literature in the application. In thickness to warrant disconnecting the icebreaking operations. Despite Shell’s cases where density estimates were not Discoverer from its moorings during the experience in 2012, historical data readily available in the peer-reviewed remainder of the 2012 season. If ice is relative to ice conditions in the Chukchi literature, Shell used other methods to present, ice management activities may Sea in the vicinity of Shell’s planned derive the estimates. NMFS reviewed be necessary in early July, at discrete 2015 activities, establishes that there is the density estimate descriptions and intervals at other times during the a low probability for the type of articles from which estimates were season, and towards the end of hazardous ice conditions that might derived and requested additional operations in late October. However, necessitate icebreaking (e.g., records of information to better explain the density data regarding historic ice patterns in the National Naval Ice Center archives; estimates presented by Shell in its the area of activities indicate that it will Shell/SIWAC). The probability could be application. This additional information not be required throughout the planned greater at the beginning and/or the end was included in the revised IHA 2015 drilling season. of the drilling season (early July or late application. The explanation for those During the 2012 drilling season, a October). For the purposes of evaluating derivations and the actual density total of seven days of active ice possible impacts of the planned estimates are described later in this management by vessels occurred in activities, Shell has assumed document (see the ‘‘Estimated Take by support of Shell’s exploration drilling icebreaking activities for a limited Incidental Harassment’’ section). program in the Chukchi Sea. period of time, and estimated incidental The narwhal occurs in Canadian When ice is present at a drill site, ice exposures of marine mammals from waters and occasionally in the Alaskan disturbance will be limited to the such activities. Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi Sea, but minimum amount needed to allow it is considered extralimital in U.S. drilling to continue. First-year ice will Description of Marine Mammals in the waters and is not expected to be be the type most likely to be Area of the Specified Activity encountered. There are scattered records encountered. The ice-management The Chukchi Sea supports a diverse of narwhal in Alaskan waters, including vessel will be tasked with managing the assemblage of marine mammals, reports by subsistence hunters, where ice so that it flows easily around the including: Bowhead, gray, beluga, killer, the species is considered extralimital drilling units and their anchor moorings minke, humpback, and fin whales; (Reeves et al., 2002). Due to the rarity without building up in front of either. harbor porpoise; ringed, ribbon, spotted, of this species in the proposed project This type of ice is managed by the ice- and bearded seals; narwhals; polar bears area and the remote chance it would be management vessel continually moving (Ursus maritimus); and walruses affected by Shell’s proposed Chukchi back and forth across the drift line, (Odobenus rosmarus divergens; see Sea drilling activities, this species is not directly up drift of the drilling units and Table 4–1 in Shell’s application). The discussed further in this proposed IHA making turns at both ends, or in circular bowhead, humpback, and fin whales are notice. patterns. During ice-management, the listed as ‘‘endangered’’ under the Shell’s application contains vessel’s propeller is rotating at Endangered Species Act (ESA) and as information on the status, distribution, approximately 15 to 20% of the vessel’s depleted under the MMPA. The ringed seasonal distribution, abundance, and propeller rotation capacity. Ice seal is listed as ‘‘threatened’’ under the life history of each of the species under management occurs with slow ESA. Certain stocks or populations of NMFS jurisdiction mentioned in this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11730 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

document. When reviewing the to the application for that information www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/ application, NMFS determined that the (see ADDRESSES). Additional information ak2013_final.pdf. species descriptions provided by Shell can also be found in the NMFS Stock Table 1 lists the 12 marine mammal correctly characterized the status, Assessment Reports (SAR). The Alaska species or stocks under NMFS distribution, seasonal distribution, and 2013 SAR is available at: http:// jurisdiction with confirmed or possible abundance of each species. Please refer occurrence in the proposed project area.

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES AND STOCKS WITH CONFIRMED OR POSSIBLE OCCURRENCE IN THE PROPOSED EXPLORATION DRILLING AREA

Common name Scientific name Status Occurrence Seasonality Range Abundance

Odontocetes: Beluga whale Dephinapterus ...... Common ...... Mostly spring and Russia to Canada 3,710 (Eastern leucas. fall with some in Chukchi Sea summer. stock). Beluga whale Delphinapterus ...... Common ...... Mostly spring and Russia to Canada 39,258 (Beaufort Sea leucas. fall with some in stock). summer. Killer whale ...... Orcinus orca ...... Occasional/ Mostly summer California to Alaska 2,084 Extralimital. and early fall. Harbor porpoise Phocoena ...... Occasional/ Mostly summer California to Alaska 48,215 phocoena. Extralimital. and early fall. Mysticetes: Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus Endangered; De- Common ...... Mostly spring and Russia to Canada 19,534 pleted. fall with some in summer. Gray whale ...... Eschrichtius ...... Somewhat com- Mostly summer ..... Mexico to the U.S. 19,126 robustus. mon. Arctic Ocean. Minke whale .... Balaenoptera ...... Rare ...... Summer ...... North Pacific ...... 810–1,003 acutorostrata. Fin whale B. physalus ...... Endangered; De- Rare ...... Summer ...... North Pacific ...... 1,652 (North Pacific pleted. stock). Humpback Megaptera Endangered; De- Rare ...... Summer ...... Central to North 20,800 whale (Cen- novaeangliae. pleted. Pacific. tral North Pa- cific stock). Pinnipeds: Bearded seal Erigathus barbatus Candidate ...... Common ...... Spring and sum- Bering, Chukchi, 155,000 (Beringia dis- mer. and Beaufort tinct popu- Seas. lation seg- ment). Ringed seal Phoca hispida ...... Threatened; De- Common ...... Year round ...... Bering, Chukchi, 300,000 (Arctic stock). pleted. and Beaufort Seas. Spotted seal .... Phoca largha ...... Common ...... Summer ...... Japan to U.S. Arc- 141,479 tic Ocean. Ribbon seal ..... Histriophoca Species of concern Occasional ...... Summer ...... Russia to U.S. Arc- 49,000 fasciata. tic Ocean.

Potential Effects of the Specified quantitative analysis of the number of Background on Sound Activity on Marine Mammals individuals that are expected to be taken Sound is a physical phenomenon This section includes a summary and by this activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact consisting of minute vibrations that discussion of the ways that the types of Analysis’’ section will include the travel through a medium, such as air or stressors associated with the specified analysis of how this specific activity water, and is generally characterized by activity (e.g., drilling, seismic airgun, will impact marine mammals and will several variables. Frequency describes vessel movement) have been observed to consider the content of this section, the the sound’s pitch and is measured in or are thought to impact marine ‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental hertz (Hz) or kilohertz (kHz), while mammals. This section is intended as a Harassment’’ section, the ‘‘Mitigation’’ sound level describes the sound’s background of potential effects and does section, and the ‘‘Anticipated Effects on intensity and is measured in decibels not consider either the specific manner Marine Mammal Habitat’’ section to (dB). Sound level increases or decreases in which this activity will be carried out draw conclusions regarding the likely exponentially with each dB of change. or the mitigation that will be impacts of this activity on the The logarithmic nature of the scale implemented or how either of those will reproductive success or survivorship of means that each 10-dB increase is a 10- shape the anticipated impacts from this individuals and from that on the fold increase in acoustic power (and a specific activity. The ‘‘Estimated Take affected marine mammal populations or 20-dB increase is then a 100-fold by Incidental Harassment’’ section later stocks. increase in power). A 10-fold increase in in this document will include a acoustic power does not mean that the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11731

sound is perceived as being 10 times showed received sound levels of 120 dB Because of doppler shift effects, the louder, however. Sound levels are re 1 m Pa rms at 1.5 km. The Polar frequencies of tones received at a compared to a reference sound pressure Pioneer, a semi-submersible drilling stationary site diminish when an aircraft (micro-Pascal) to identify the medium. unit, is expected to introduce less sound passes overhead. The apparent For air and water, these reference into the water than the Discoverer frequency is increased while the aircraft pressures are ‘‘re 20 m Pa’’ and ‘‘re 1 during drilling and related activities. approaches and is reduced while it moves away. m Pa,’’ respectively. Root mean square (2) Airgun Sounds (RMS) is the quadratic mean sound Aircraft flyovers are not heard pressure over the duration of an Two sound sources have been underwater for very long, especially impulse. RMS is calculated by squaring proposed by Shell for the ZVSP surveys when compared to how long they are all of the sound amplitudes, averaging in 2015. The first is a small airgun array heard in air as the aircraft approaches the squares, and then taking the square that consists of three 150 in3 (2,458 cm3) an observer. Helicopters flying to and root of the average (Urick, 1983). RMS airguns for a total volume of 450 in3 from the drilling units will generally 3 accounts for both positive and negative (7,374 cm ). The second ZVSP sound maintain straight-line routes at altitudes 3 values; squaring the pressures makes all source consists of two 250 in (4097 of 1,500 ft. (457 m) above sea level, 3 values positive so that they may be cm ) airguns with a total volume of 500 thereby limiting the received levels at 3 3 accounted for in the summation of in (8,194 cm ). Typically, a single and below the surface. ZVSP survey will be performed when pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, (4) Vessel Noise 2005). This measurement is often used the well has reached PTD or final depth in the context of discussing behavioral although, in some instances, a prior In addition to the drilling units, effects, in part, because behavioral ZVSP will have been performed at a various types of vessels will be used in support of the operations including ice effects, which often result from auditory shallower depth. A typical survey, management vessels, anchor handlers, cues, may be better expressed through would last 10–14 hours, depending on OSVs, and OSR vessels. Sounds from averaged units rather than by peak the depth of the well and the number of boats and vessels have been reported pressures. anchoring points, and include firings of up to the full array, plus additional extensively (Greene and Moore 1995; Exploration Drilling Program Sound firing of the smallest airgun in the array Blackwell and Greene 2002, 2005, Characteristics to be used as a ‘‘mitigation airgun’’ 2006). Numerous measurements of underwater vessel sound have been (1) Drilling Sounds while the geophones are relocated within the wellbore. performed in support of recent industry Exploration drilling will be conducted Airguns function by venting high- activity in the Chukchi and Beaufort from the drilling units Discoverer and pressure air into the water. The pressure Seas. Results of these measurements Polar Pioneer. Underwater sound signature of an individual airgun were reported in various 90-day and propagation during the activities results consists of a sharp rise and then fall in comprehensive reports since 2007. For from the use of generators, drilling pressure, followed by several positive example, Garner and Hannay (2009) machinery, and the drilling units and negative pressure excursions caused estimated sound pressure levels of 100 themselves. Sound levels during vessel- by oscillation of the resulting air bubble. dB re 1 m Pa rms at distances ranging based operations may fluctuate The sizes, arrangement, and firing times from ∼1.5 to 2.3 mi (∼2.4 to 3.7 km) from depending on the specific type of of the individual airguns in an array are various types of barges. MacDonnell et activity at a given time and aspect from designed and synchronized to suppress al. (2008) estimated higher underwater the vessel. Underwater sound levels the pressure oscillations subsequent to sound pressure levels from the seismic may also depend on the specific the first cycle. A typical high-energy vessel Gilavar of 120 dB re 1 m Pa rms equipment in operation. Lower sound airgun arrays emit most energy at 10– at ∼13 mi (∼21 km) from the source, levels have been reported during well 120 Hz. However, the pulses contain although the sound level was only 150 logging than during drilling operations energy up to 500–1000 Hz and some dB re 1 m Pa rms at 85 ft (26 m) from (Greene 1987b), and underwater sound energy at higher frequencies (Goold and the vessel. Like other industry-generated appeared to be lower at the bow and Fish 1998; Potter et al. 2007). sound, underwater sound from vessels stern aspects than at the beam (Greene is generally at relatively low 1987a). (3) Aircraft Noise frequencies. During 2012, underwater Most drilling sounds generated from Helicopters may be used for personnel sound from ten (10) vessels in transit, vessel-based operations occur at and equipment transport to and from and in two instances towing or relatively low frequencies below 600 Hz the drilling units and support vessels. providing a tow-assist, were recorded by although tones up to 1,850 Hz were Under calm conditions, rotor and engine JASCO in the Chukchi Sea as a function recorded by Greene (1987a) during sounds are coupled into the water of the sound source characterization drilling operations in the Beaufort Sea. within a 26° cone beneath the aircraft. (SSC) study required in the Shell 2012 At a range of 0.17 km, the 20–1000 Hz Some of the sound will transmit beyond Chukchi Sea drilling IHA. SSC transit band level was 122–125 dB re 1m Pa rms the immediate area, and some sound and tow results from 2012 include ice for the drillship Explorer I. Underwater will enter the water outside the 26° area management vessels, an anchor handler, sound levels were slightly higher (134 when the sea surface is rough. However, OSR vessels, the OST, support tugs, and db re 1m Pa rms) during drilling activity scattering and absorption will limit OSVs. The recorded sound pressure from the Explorer II at a range of 0.20 lateral propagation in the shallow water. levels to 120 dB re 1 m Pa rms for vessels km; although tones were only recorded Dominant tones in noise spectra from in transit primarily range from ∼0.8–4.3 below 600 Hz. Underwater sound helicopters are generally below 500 Hz mi (1.3–6.9 km), whereas the measured measurements from the Kulluk in 1986 (Greene and Moore 1995). Harmonics of 120 dB re 1 m Pa rms for the drilling unit at 0.98 km were higher (143 dB re 1m Pa the main rotor and tail rotor usually Kulluk under tow by the Aiviq in the rms) than from the other two vessels. dominate the sound from helicopters; Chukchi Sea was approximately 11.8 mi Measurements of the Discoverer on the however, many additional tones (19 km) on its way to the Beaufort Sea Burger prospect in 2012, without any associated with the engines and other (O’Neil and McCrodan 2012a, b). support vessels operating nearby, rotating parts are sometimes present. Measurements of vessel sounds from

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11732 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

Shell’s 2012 exploration drilling between approximately 200 Hz and 180 tolerance of vessels, and Brueggeman et program in the Chukchi Sea are kHz; al. (1992, cited in Richardson et al., presented in detail in the 2012 • Phocid pinnipeds in Water: 1995a) observed ringed seals hauled out Comprehensive Monitoring Report (LGL functional hearing is estimated to occur on ice pans displaying short-term 2013). between approximately 75 Hz and 100 escape reactions when a ship The primary sources of sounds from kHz; and approached within 0.25–0.5 mi (0.4–0.8 • all vessel classes are propeller Otariid pinnipeds in Water: km). functional hearing is estimated to occur cavitation, propeller singing, and (2) Masking propulsion or other machinery. between approximately 100 Hz and 40 Propeller cavitation is usually the kHz. Masking is the obscuring of sounds of dominant noise source for vessels (Ross As mentioned previously in this interest by other sounds, often at similar 1976). Propeller cavitation and singing document, 12 marine mammal species frequencies. Marine mammals are are produced outside the hull, whereas or stocks (nine cetaceans and four highly dependent on sound, and their propulsion or other machinery noise phocid pinnipeds) may occur in the ability to recognize sound signals amid originates inside the hull. There are proposed seismic survey area. Of the other noise is important in additional sounds produced by vessel nine cetacean species or stocks likely to communication, predator and prey activity, such as pumps, generators, occur in the proposed project area and detection, and, in the case of toothed flow noise from water passing over the for which take is requested, two are whales, echolocation. Even in the classified as low-frequency cetaceans hull, and bubbles breaking in the wake. absence of manmade sounds, the sea is (i.e., bowhead and gray whales), two are Icebreakers contribute greater sound usually noisy. Background ambient classified as mid-frequency cetaceans levels during ice-breaking activities than noise often interferes with or masks the (i.e., both beluga stocks and killer ships of similar size during normal ability of an animal to detect a sound whales), and one is classified as a high- signal even when that signal is above its operation in open water (Richardson et frequency cetacean (i.e., harbor absolute hearing threshold. Natural al. 1995a). This higher sound porpoise) (Southall et al., 2007). A ambient noise includes contributions production results from the greater species functional hearing group is a from wind, waves, precipitation, other amount of power and propeller consideration when we analyze the animals, and (at frequencies above 30 cavitation required when operating in effects of exposure to sound on marine kHz) thermal noise resulting from thick ice. mammals. molecular agitation (Richardson et al., 1995a). Background noise also can Acoustic Impacts (1) Tolerance include sounds from human activities. When considering the influence of Numerous studies have shown that Masking of natural sounds can result various kinds of sound on the marine underwater sounds from industry when human activities produce high environment, it is necessary to activities are often readily detectable by levels of background noise. Conversely, understand that different kinds of marine mammals in the water at if the background level of underwater marine life are sensitive to different distances of many kilometers. noise is high (e.g., on a day with strong frequencies of sound. Based on available Numerous studies have also shown that wind and high waves), an behavioral data, audiograms have been marine mammals at distances more than anthropogenic noise source will not be derived using auditory evoked a few kilometers away often show no detectable as far away as would be potentials, anatomical modeling, and apparent response to industry activities possible under quieter conditions and other data, Southall et al. (2007) of various types (Miller et al., 2005; Bain will itself be masked. designate ‘‘functional hearing groups’’ and Williams, 2006). This is often true Although some degree of masking is for marine mammals and estimate the even in cases when the sounds must be inevitable when high levels of manmade lower and upper frequencies of readily audible to the animals based on broadband sounds are introduced into functional hearing of the groups. The measured received levels and the the sea, marine mammals have evolved functional groups and the associated hearing sensitivity of that mammal systems and behavior that function to frequencies are indicated below (though group. Although various baleen whales, reduce the impacts of masking. animals are less sensitive to sounds at toothed whales, and (less frequently) Structured signals, such as the the outer edge of their functional range pinnipeds have been shown to react echolocation click sequences of small and most sensitive to sounds of behaviorally to underwater sound such toothed whales, may be readily detected frequencies within a smaller range as airgun pulses or vessels under some even in the presence of strong somewhere in the middle of their conditions, at other times mammals of background noise because their functional hearing range): all three types have shown no overt frequency content and temporal features • Low frequency cetaceans (13 reactions (e.g., Malme et al., 1986; usually differ strongly from those of the species of mysticetes): functional Richardson et al., 1995; Madsen and background noise (Au and Moore, 1988, hearing is estimated to occur between Mohl, 2000; Croll et al., 2001; Jacobs 1990). The components of background approximately 7 Hz and 30 kHz; and Terhune, 2002; Madsen et al., 2002; noise that are similar in frequency to the • Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 Miller et al., 2005). In general, sound signal in question primarily species of dolphins, six species of larger pinnipeds and small odontocetes seem determine the degree of masking of that toothed whales, and 19 species of to be more tolerant of exposure to some signal. beaked and bottlenose whales): types of underwater sound than are Redundancy and context can also functional hearing is estimated to occur baleen whales. Richardson et al. (1995a) facilitate detection of weak signals. between approximately 150 Hz and 160 found that vessel noise does not seem to These phenomena may help marine kHz; strongly affect pinnipeds that are mammals detect weak sounds in the • High frequency cetaceans (eight already in the water. Richardson et al. presence of natural or manmade noise. species of true porpoises, six species of (1995a) went on to explain that seals on Most masking studies in marine river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, haul-outs sometimes respond strongly to mammals present the test signal and the and four species of cephalorhynchids): the presence of vessels and at other masking noise from the same direction. functional hearing is estimated to occur times appear to show considerable The sound localization abilities of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11733

marine mammals suggest that, if signal biologically important sounds by some measurements on hearing sensitivity are and noise come from different marine mammals. This masking may be available for these species. It is not directions, masking would not be as more prominent for lower frequencies. currently possible to determine with severe as the usual types of masking For higher frequencies, such as that precision the potential consequences of studies might suggest (Richardson et al., used in echolocation by toothed whales, temporary or local background noise 1995a). The dominant background noise several mechanisms are available that levels. However, Parks et al. (2007) may be highly directional if it comes may allow them to reduce the effects of found that right whales (a species from a particular anthropogenic source such masking. closely related to the bowhead whale) such as a ship or industrial site. Masking effects of underwater sounds altered their vocalizations, possibly in Directional hearing may significantly from Shell’s proposed activities on response to background noise levels. For reduce the masking effects of these marine mammal calls and other natural species that can hear over a relatively noises by improving the effective signal- sounds are expected to be limited. For broad frequency range, as is presumed to-noise ratio. In the cases of high- example, beluga whales primarily use to be the case for mysticetes, a narrow frequency hearing by the bottlenose high-frequency sounds to communicate band source may only cause partial dolphin, beluga whale, and killer whale, and locate prey; therefore, masking by masking. Richardson et al. (1995a) note empirical evidence confirms that low-frequency sounds associated with that a bowhead whale 12.4 mi (20 km) masking depends strongly on the drilling activities is not expected to from a human sound source, such as relative directions of arrival of sound occur (Gales, 1982, as cited in Shell, that produced during oil and gas signals and the masking noise (Penner et 2009). If the distance between industry activities, might hear strong al., 1986; Dubrovskiy, 1990; Bain et al., communicating whales does not exceed calls from other whales within 1993; Bain and Dahlheim, 1994). their distance from the drilling activity, approximately 12.4 mi (20 km), and a Toothed whales, and probably other the likelihood of potential impacts from whale 3.1 mi (5 km) from the source marine mammals as well, have masking would be low (Gales, 1982, as might hear strong calls from whales additional capabilities besides cited in Shell, 2009). At distances within approximately 3.1 mi (5 km). directional hearing that can facilitate greater than 660–1,300 ft (200–400 m), Additionally, masking is more likely to detection of sounds in the presence of recorded sounds from drilling activities occur closer to a sound source, and background noise. There is evidence did not affect behavior of beluga whales, distant anthropogenic sound is less that some toothed whales can shift the even though the sound energy level and likely to mask short-distance acoustic dominant frequencies of their frequency were such that it could be communication (Richardson et al., echolocation signals from a frequency heard several kilometers away 1995a). range with a lot of ambient noise toward (Richardson et al., 1995b). This Although some masking by marine frequencies with less noise (Au et al., exposure resulted in whales being mammal species in the area may occur, 1974, 1985; Moore and Pawloski, 1990; deflected from the sound energy and the extent of the masking interference Thomas and Turl, 1990; Romanenko changing behavior. These minor will depend on the spatial relationship and Kitain, 1992; Lesage et al., 1999). A changes are not expected to affect the of the animal and Shell’s activity. few marine mammal species are known beluga whale population (Richardson et Almost all energy in the sounds emitted to increase the source levels or alter the al., 1991; Richard et al., 1998). Brewer by drilling and other operational frequency of their calls in the presence et al. (1993) observed belugas within 2.3 activities is at low frequencies, mi (3.7 km) of the drilling unit Kulluk predominantly below 250 Hz with of elevated sound levels (Dahlheim, during drilling; however, the authors do another peak centered around 1,000 Hz. 1987; Au, 1993; Lesage et al., 1993, not describe any behaviors that may Most energy in the sounds from the 1999; Terhune, 1999; Foote et al., 2004; have been exhibited by those animals. vessels and aircraft to be used during Parks et al., 2007, 2009; Di Iorio and Please refer to the Arctic Multiple-Sale this project is below 1 kHz (Moore et al., Clark, 2009; Holt et al., 2009). Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1984; Greene and Moore, 1995; These data demonstrating adaptations (USDOI MMS, 2008), available on the Blackwell et al., 2004b; Blackwell and for reduced masking pertain mainly to Internet at: http://www.mms.gov/alaska/ Greene, 2006). These frequencies are the very high frequency echolocation ref/EIS%20EA/ArcticMultiSale_209/ mainly used by mysticetes but not by signals of toothed whales. There is less _DEIS.htm, for more detailed odontocetes. Therefore, masking effects information about the existence of information. would potentially be more pronounced corresponding mechanisms at moderate There is evidence of other marine in the bowhead and gray whales that or low frequencies or in other types of mammal species continuing to call in might occur in the proposed project marine mammals. For example, Zaitseva the presence of industrial activity. area. If, as described later in this et al. (1980) found that, for the Annual acoustical monitoring near BP’s document, certain species avoid the bottlenose dolphin, the angular Northstar production facility during the proposed drilling locations, impacts separation between a sound source and fall bowhead migration westward from masking are anticipated to be low. a masking noise source had little effect through the Beaufort Sea has recorded on the degree of masking when the thousands of calls each year (for (3) Behavioral Disturbance Reactions sound frequency was 18 kHz, in contrast examples, see Richardson et al., 2007; Behavioral responses to sound are to the pronounced effect at higher Aerts and Richardson, 2008). highly variable and context-specific. frequencies. Directional hearing has Construction, maintenance, and Many different variables can influence been demonstrated at frequencies as low operational activities have been an animal’s perception of and response as 0.5–2 kHz in several marine occurring from this facility for over 10 to (in both nature and magnitude) an mammals, including killer whales years. To compensate and reduce acoustic event. An animal’s prior (Richardson et al., 1995a). This ability masking, some mysticetes may alter the experience with a sound or sound may be useful in reducing masking at frequencies of their communication source affects whether it is less likely these frequencies. In summary, high sounds (Richardson et al., 1995a; Parks (habituation) or more likely levels of noise generated by et al., 2007). Masking processes in (sensitization) to respond to certain anthropogenic activities may act to baleen whales are not amenable to sounds in the future (animals can also mask the detection of weaker laboratory study, and no direct be innately pre-disposed to respond to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11734 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

certain sounds in certain ways; Southall would be expected given the different beluga whales. Behaviors classified as et al., 2007). Related to the sound itself, sensitivities of marine mammal species reactions consisted of short surfacings, the perceived nearness of the sound, to sound. immediate dives or turns, changes in bearing of the sound (approaching vs. Baleen Whales—Richardson et al. behavior state, vigorous swimming, and retreating), similarity of a sound to (1995b) reported changes in surfacing breaching. Most bowhead reaction biologically relevant sounds in the and respiration behavior and the resulted from exposure to helicopter animal’s environment (i.e., calls of occurrence of turns during surfacing in activity and little response to fixed-wing predators, prey, or conspecifics), and bowhead whales exposed to playback of aircraft was observed. Most reactions familiarity of the sound may affect the underwater sound from drilling occurred when the helicopter was at way an animal responds to the sound activities. These behavioral effects were altitudes ≤492 ft (150 m) and lateral (Southall et al., 2007). Individuals (of localized and occurred at distances up distances ≤820 ft (250 m; Nowacek et different age, gender, reproductive to 1.2–2.5 mi (2–4 km). al., 2007). status, etc.) among most populations Some bowheads appeared to divert During their study, Patenaude et al. will have variable hearing capabilities from their migratory path after exposure (2002) observed one bowhead whale and differing behavioral sensitivities to to projected icebreaker sounds. Other cow-calf pair during four passes totaling sounds that will be affected by prior bowheads however, tolerated projected 2.8 hours of the helicopter and two pairs conditioning, experience, and current icebreaker sound at levels 20 dB and during Twin Otter overflights. All of the activities of those individuals. Often, more above ambient sound levels. The helicopter passes were at altitudes of specific acoustic features of the sound source level of the projected sound 49–98 ft (15–30 m). The mother dove and contextual variables (i.e., proximity, however, was much less than that of an both times she was at the surface, and duration, or recurrence of the sound or actual icebreaker, and reaction distances the calf dove once out of the four times the current behavior that the marine to actual icebreaking may be much it was at the surface. For the cow-calf mammal is engaged in or its prior greater than those reported here for pair sightings during Twin Otter experience), as well as entirely separate projected sounds. overflights, the authors did not note any factors such as the physical presence of Brewer et al. (1993) and Hall et al. behaviors specific to those pairs. Rather, a nearby vessel, may be more relevant (1994) reported numerous sightings of the reactions of the cow-calf pairs were to the animal’s response than the marine mammals including bowhead lumped with the reactions of other received level alone. whales in the vicinity of offshore groups that did not consist of calves. Exposure of marine mammals to drilling operations in the Beaufort Sea. Richardson et al. (1995b) and Moore sound sources can result in (but is not One bowhead whale sighting was and Clarke (2002) reviewed a few limited to) no response or any of the reported within approximately 1,312 ft studies that observed responses of gray following observable responses: (400 m) of a drilling vessel although whales to aircraft. Cow-calf pairs were Increased alertness; orientation or most other bowhead sightings were at quite sensitive to a turboprop survey attraction to a sound source; vocal much greater distances. Few bowheads flown at 1,000 ft (305 m) altitude on the modifications; cessation of feeding; were recorded near industrial activities Alaskan summering grounds. In that cessation of social interaction; alteration by aerial observers. After controlling for survey, adults were seen swimming over of movement or diving behavior; spatial autocorrelation in aerial survey the calf, or the calf swam under the avoidance; habitat abandonment data from Hall et al. (1994) using a adult (Ljungblad et al., 1983, cited in (temporary or permanent); and, in Mantel test, Schick and Urban (2000) Richardson et al., 1995b and Moore and severe cases, panic, flight, stampede, or found that the variable describing Clarke, 2002). However, when the same stranding, potentially resulting in death straight line distance between the rig aircraft circled for more than 10 minutes (Southall et al., 2007). On a related note, and bowhead whale sightings was not at 1,050 ft (320 m) altitude over a group many animals perform vital functions, significant but that a variable describing of mating gray whales, no reactions such as feeding, resting, traveling, and threshold distances between sightings were observed (Ljungblad et al., 1987, socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hr cycle). and the rig was significant. Thus, cited in Moore and Clarke, 2002). Behavioral reactions to noise exposure although the aerial survey results Malme et al. (1984, cited in Richardson (such as disruption of critical life suggested substantial avoidance of the et al., 1995b and Moore and Clarke, functions, displacement, or avoidance of operations by bowhead whales, 2002) conducted playback experiments important habitat) are more likely to be observations by vessel-based observers on migrating gray whales. They exposed significant if they last more than one indicate that at least some bowheads the animals to underwater noise diel cycle or recur on subsequent days may have been closer to industrial recorded from a Bell 212 helicopter (Southall et al., 2007). Consequently, a activities than was suggested by results (estimated altitude=328 ft [100 m]), at behavioral response lasting less than of aerial observations. an average of three simulated passes per one day and not recurring on Richardson et al. (2008) reported a minute. The authors observed that subsequent days is not considered slight change in the distribution of whales changed their swimming course particularly severe unless it could bowhead whale calls in response to and sometimes slowed down in directly affect reproduction or survival operational sounds on BP’s Northstar response to the playback sound but (Southall et al., 2007). Island. The southern edge of the call proceeded to migrate past the Detailed studies regarding responses distribution ranged from 0.47 to 1.46 mi transducer. Migrating gray whales did to anthropogenic sound have been (0.76 to 2.35 km) farther offshore, not react overtly to a Bell 212 helicopter conducted on humpback, gray, and apparently in response to industrial at greater than 1,394 ft (425 m) altitude, bowhead whales and ringed seals. Less sound levels. This result however, was occasionally reacted when the detailed data are available for some only achieved after intensive statistical helicopter was at 1,000–1,198 ft (305– other species of baleen whales, sperm analyses, and it is not clear that this 365 m), and usually reacted when it was whales, small toothed whales, and sea represented a biologically significant below 825 ft (250 m; Southwest otters. The following sub-sections effect. Research Associates, 1988, cited in provide examples of behavioral Patenaude et al. (2002) reported fewer Richardson et al., 1995b and Moore and responses that demonstrate the behavioral responses to aircraft Clarke, 2002). Reactions noted in that variability in behavioral responses that overflights by bowhead compared to study included abrupt turns or dives or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11735

both. Green et al. (1992, cited in responding to vessels in Hervey Bay, different artificial signals. Ten whales Richardson et al., 1995b) observed that Australia. Results indicated clear were tagged with calibrated instruments migrating gray whales rarely exhibited avoidance at received levels between that measured received sound noticeable reactions to a straight-line 118 to 124 dB in three cases for which characteristics and concurrent animal overflight by a Twin Otter at 197 ft (60 response and received levels were movements in three dimensions. Five m) altitude. Restrictions on aircraft observed/measured. out of six exposed whales reacted altitude will be part of the proposed Palka and Hammond (2001) analyzed strongly to alert signals at measured mitigation measures (described in the line transect census data in which the received levels between 130 and 150 dB ‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’ section later in orientation and distance off transect line (i.e., ceased foraging and swam rapidly this document) during the proposed were reported for large numbers of to the surface). Two of these individuals drilling activities, and overflights are minke whales. The authors developed a were not exposed to ship noise, and the likely to have little or no disturbance method to account for effects of animal other four were exposed to both stimuli. effects on baleen whales. Any movement in response to sighting These whales reacted mildly to disturbance that may occur would likely platforms. Minor changes in locomotion conspecific signals. Seven whales, be temporary and localized. speed, direction, and/or diving profile including the four exposed to the alert Southall et al. (2007, Appendix C) were reported at ranges from 1,847 to stimulus, had no measurable response reviewed a number of papers describing 2,352 ft (563 to 717 m) at received levels to either ship sounds or actual vessel the responses of marine mammals to of 110 to 120 dB. noise. non-pulsed sound, such as that Biassoni et al. (2000) and Miller et al. Toothed Whales—Most toothed produced during exploratory drilling (2000) reported behavioral observations whales have the greatest hearing operations. In general, little or no for humpback whales exposed to a low- sensitivity at frequencies much higher response was observed in animals frequency sonar stimulus (160- to 330- than that of baleen whales and may be exposed at received levels from 90–120 Hz frequency band; 42-s tonal signal less responsive to low-frequency sound dB re 1 mPa (rms). Probability of repeated every 6 min; source levels 170 commonly associated with oil and gas avoidance and other behavioral effects to 200 dB) during playback experiments. industry exploratory drilling activities. increased when received levels were Exposure to measured received levels Richardson et al. (1995b) reported that from 120–160 dB re 1 mPa (rms). Some ranging from 120 to 150 dB resulted in beluga whales did not show any of the relevant reviews contained in variability in humpback singing apparent reaction to playback of Southall et al. (2007) are summarized behavior. Croll et al. (2001) investigated underwater drilling sounds at distances next. responses of foraging fin and blue greater than 656–1,312 ft (200–400 m). Baker et al. (1982) reported some whales to the same low frequency active Reactions included slowing down, avoidance by humpback whales to sonar stimulus off southern California. milling, or reversal of course after which vessel noise when received levels were Playbacks and control intervals with no the whales continued past the projector, 110–120 dB (rms) and clear avoidance at transmission were used to investigate sometimes within 164–328 ft (50–100 120–140 dB (sound measurements were behavior and distribution on time scales m). The authors concluded (based on a not provided by Baker but were based of several weeks and spatial scales of small sample size) that the playback of on measurements of identical vessels by tens of kilometers. The general drilling sounds had no biologically Miles and Malme, 1983). conclusion was that whales remained significant effects on migration routes of Malme et al. (1983, 1984) used feeding within a region for which 12 to beluga whales migrating through pack playbacks of sounds from helicopter 30 percent of exposures exceeded 140 ice and along the seaward side of the overflight and drilling rigs and dB. nearshore lead east of Point Barrow in platforms to study behavioral effects on Frankel and Clark (1998) conducted spring. migrating gray whales. Received levels playback experiments with wintering At least six of 17 groups of beluga exceeding 120 dB induced avoidance humpback whales using a single speaker whales appeared to alter their migration reactions. Malme et al. (1984) calculated producing a low-frequency ‘‘M- path in response to underwater 10%, 50%, and 90% probabilities of sequence’’ (sine wave with multiple- playbacks of icebreaker sound in the gray whale avoidance reactions at phase reversals) signal in the 60 to 90 Arctic (Richardson et al., 1995b). received levels of 110, 120, and 130 dB, Hz band with output of 172 dB at 1 m. Received levels from the icebreaker respectively. Malme et al. (1986) For 11 playbacks, exposures were playback were estimated at 78–84 dB in observed the behavior of feeding gray between 120 and 130 dB re 1 mPa (rms) the 1/3-octave band centered at 5,000 whales during four experimental and included sufficient information Hz, or 8–14 dB above ambient. If beluga playbacks of drilling sounds (50 to 315 regarding individual responses. During whales reacted to an actual icebreaker at Hz; 21-min overall duration and 10% eight of the trials, there were no received levels of 80 dB, reactions duty cycle; source levels of 156–162 measurable differences in tracks or would be expected to occur at distances dB). In two cases for received levels of bearings relative to control conditions, on the order of 6.2 mi (10 km). Finley 100–110 dB, no behavioral reaction was whereas on three occasions, whales et al. (1990) also reported beluga observed. However, avoidance behavior either moved slightly away from (n = 1) avoidance of icebreaker activities in the was observed in two cases where or towards (n = 2) the playback speaker Canadian High Arctic at distances of received levels were 110–120 dB. during exposure. The presence of the 22–31 mi (35–50 km). In addition to Richardson et al. (1990) performed 12 source vessel itself had a greater effect avoidance, changes in dive behavior and playback experiments in which than did the M-sequence playback. pod integrity were also noted. bowhead whales in the Alaskan Arctic Finally, Nowacek et al. (2004) used Patenaude et al. (2002) reported that were exposed to drilling sounds. Whales controlled exposures to demonstrate beluga whales appeared to be more generally did not respond to exposures behavioral reactions of northern right responsive to aircraft overflights than in the 100 to 130 dB range, although whales to various non-pulse sounds. bowhead whales. Changes were there was some indication of minor Playback stimuli included ship noise, observed in diving and respiration behavioral changes in several instances. social sounds of conspecifics, and a behavior, and some whales veered away McCauley et al. (1996) reported complex, 18-min ‘‘alert’’ sound when a helicopter passed at ≤820 ft (250 several cases of humpback whales consisting of repetitions of three m) lateral distance at altitudes up to 492

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11736 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

ft (150 m). However, some belugas total number of animals observed 2.5 mi (4 km). Also, there was a showed no reaction to the helicopter. fleeing was about 300, suggesting dramatic reduction in the number of Belugas appeared to show less response approximately 100 independent groups days ‘‘resident’’ killer whales were to fixed-wing aircraft than to helicopter (of three individuals each). No whales sighted during AHD-active periods overflights. were sighted the following day, but compared to pre- and post-exposure In reviewing responses of cetaceans some were sighted on June 30, with ship periods and a nearby control site. with best hearing in mid-frequency noise audible at spectrum levels of Monteiro-Neto et al. (2004) studied ranges, which includes toothed whales, approximately 55 dB/Hz (up to 4 kHz). avoidance responses of tucuxi (Sotalia Southall et al. (2007) reported that Observations during 1983 (LGL and fluviatilis) to Dukane® Netmark acoustic combined field and laboratory data for Greeneridge, 1986) involved two deterrent devices. In a total of 30 mid-frequency cetaceans exposed to icebreaking ships with aerial survey and exposure trials, approximately five non-pulse sounds did not lead to a clear ice-based observations during seven groups each demonstrated significant conclusion about received levels sampling periods. Narwhals and belugas avoidance compared to 20 pinger off coincident with various behavioral generally reacted at received levels and 55 no-pinger control trials over two responses. In some settings, individuals ranging from 101 to 121 dB in the 20- quadrats of about 0.19 mi2 (0.5 km2). in the field showed profound to 1,000-Hz band and at a distance of up Estimated exposure received levels were (significant) behavioral responses to to 40.4 mi (65 km). Large numbers approximately 115 dB. exposures from 90–120 dB, while others (100s) of beluga whales moved out of Awbrey and Stewart (1983) played failed to exhibit such responses for the area at higher received levels. As back semi-submersible drillship sounds exposure to received levels from 120– noise levels from icebreaking operations (source level: 163 dB) to belugas in 150 dB. Contextual variables other than diminished, a total of 45 narwhals Alaska. They reported avoidance exposure received level, and probable returned to the area and engaged in reactions at 984 and 4,921 ft (300 and species differences, are the likely diving and foraging behavior. During the 1,500 m) and approach by groups at a reasons for this variability. Context, final sampling period, following an 8-h distance of 2.2 mi (3.5 km; received including the fact that captive subjects quiet interval, no reactions were seen levels were approximately 110 to 145 were often directly reinforced with food from 28 narwhals and 17 belugas (at dB over these ranges assuming a 15 log for tolerating noise exposure, may also received levels ranging up to 115 dB). R transmission loss). Similarly, explain why there was great disparity in The final season (1984) reported in Richardson et al. (1990) played back results from field and laboratory LGL and Greeneridge (1986) involved drilling platform sounds (source level: conditions—exposures in captive aerial surveys before, during, and after 163 dB) to belugas in Alaska. They settings generally exceeded 170 dB the passage of two icebreaking ships. conducted aerial observations of eight before inducing behavioral responses. A During operations, no belugas and few individuals among approximately 100 summary of some of the relevant narwhals were observed in an area spread over an area several hundred material reviewed by Southall et al. approximately 16.8 mi (27 km) ahead of meters to several kilometers from the (2007) is next. the vessels, and all whales sighted over sound source and found no obvious LGL and Greeneridge (1986) and 12.4–50 mi (20–80 km) from the ships reactions. Moderate changes in Finley et al. (1990) documented belugas were swimming strongly away. movement were noted for three groups and narwhals congregated near ice Additional observations confirmed the swimming within 656 ft (200 m) of the edges reacting to the approach and spatial extent of avoidance reactions to sound projector. passage of icebreaking ships in the this sound source in this context. Two studies deal with issues related Arctic. Beluga whales responded to Buckstaff (2004) reported elevated to changes in marine mammal vocal oncoming vessels by (1) fleeing at dolphin whistle rates with received behavior as a function of variable speeds of up to 12.4 mi/hr (20 km/hr) levels from oncoming vessels in the 110 background noise levels. Foote et al. from distances of 12.4–50 mi (20–80 to 120 dB range in Sarasota Bay, Florida. (2004) found increases in the duration km), (2) abandoning normal pod These hearing thresholds were of killer whale calls over the period structure, and (3) modifying vocal apparently lower than those reported by 1977 to 2003, during which time vessel behavior and/or emitting alarm calls. a researcher listening with towed traffic in Puget Sound, and particularly Narwhals, in contrast, generally hydrophones. Morisaka et al. (2005) whale-watching boats around the demonstrated a ‘‘freeze’’ response, lying compared whistles from three animals, increased dramatically. motionless or swimming slowly away populations of Indo-Pacific bottlenose Scheifele et al. (2005) demonstrated that (as far as 23 mi [37 km] down the ice dolphins. One population was exposed belugas in the St. Lawrence River edge), huddling in groups, and ceasing to vessel noise with spectrum levels of increased the levels of their sound production. There was some approximately 85 dB/Hz in the 1- to 22- vocalizations as a function of the evidence of habituation and reduced kHz band (broadband received levels background noise level (the ‘‘Lombard avoidance 2 to 3 days after onset. approximately 128 dB) as opposed to Effect’’). The 1982 season observations by LGL approximately 65 dB/Hz in the same Several researchers conducting and Greeneridge (1986) involved a band (broadband received levels laboratory experiments on hearing and single passage of an icebreaker with approximately 108 dB) for the other two the effects of non-pulse sounds on both ice-based and aerial measurements sites. Dolphin whistles in the noisier hearing in mid-frequency cetaceans on June 28, 1982. Four groups of environment had lower fundamental have reported concurrent behavioral narwhals (n = 9 to 10, 7, 7, and 6) frequencies and less frequency responses. Nachtigall et al. (2003) responded when the ship was 4 mi (6.4 modulation, suggesting a shift in sound reported that noise exposures up to 179 km) away (received levels of parameters as a result of increased dB and 55-min duration affected the approximately 100 dB in the 150- to ambient noise. trained behaviors of a bottlenose 1,150-Hz band). At a later point, Morton and Symonds (2002) used dolphin participating in a TTS observers sighted belugas moving away census data on killer whales in British experiment. Finneran and Schlundt from the source at more than 12.4 mi (20 Columbia to evaluate avoidance of non- (2004) provided a detailed, km; received levels of approximately 90 pulse acoustic harassment devices comprehensive analysis of the dB in the 150- to 1,150-Hz band). The (AHDs). Avoidance ranges were about behavioral responses of belugas and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11737

bottlenose dolphins to 1-s tones 141 and 144 ft (43 and 44 m) of active of the helicopter or to its physical (received levels 160 to 202 dB) in the AHDs and failed to demonstrate any presence flying overhead. Typical context of TTS experiments. Romano et measurable behavioral response; reactions of hauled out pinnipeds to al. (2004) investigated the physiological estimated received levels based on the aircraft that have been observed include responses of a bottlenose dolphin and a measures given were approximately 120 looking up at the aircraft, moving on the beluga exposed to these tonal exposures to 130 dB. ice or land, entering a breathing hole or and demonstrated a decrease in blood Costa et al. (2003) measured received crack in the ice, or entering the water. cortisol levels during a series of noise levels from an Acoustic Ice seals hauled out on the ice have exposures between 130 and 201 dB. Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) been observed diving into the water Collectively, the laboratory observations program sound source off northern when approached by a low-flying suggested the onset of a behavioral California using acoustic data loggers aircraft or helicopter (Burns and Harbo, response at higher received levels than placed on translocated elephant seals. 1972, cited in Richardson et al., 1995a; did field studies. The differences were Subjects were captured on land, Burns and Frost, 1979, cited in likely related to the very different transported to sea, instrumented with Richardson et al., 1995a). Richardson et conditions and contextual variables archival acoustic tags, and released such al. (1995a) note that responses can vary between untrained, free-ranging that their transit would lead them near based on differences in aircraft type, individuals vs. laboratory subjects that an active ATOC source (at 939-m depth; altitude, and flight pattern. were rewarded with food for tolerating 75-Hz signal with 37.5- Hz bandwidth; Additionally, a study conducted by noise exposure. 195 dB maximum source level, ramped Born et al. (1999) found that wind chill Pinnipeds—Pinnipeds generally seem up from 165 dB over 20 min) on their was also a factor in level of response of to be less responsive to exposure to return to a haul-out site. Received ringed seals hauled out on ice, as well industrial sound than most cetaceans. exposure levels of the ATOC source for as time of day and relative wind Pinniped responses to underwater experimental subjects averaged 128 dB direction. sound from some types of industrial (range 118 to 137) in the 60- to 90-Hz Blackwell et al. (2004a) observed 12 activities such as seismic exploration band. None of the instrumented animals ringed seals during low-altitude appear to be temporary and localized terminated dives or radically altered overflights of a Bell 212 helicopter at (Harris et al., 2001; Reiser et al., 2009). behavior upon exposure, but some Northstar in June and July 2000 (9 Blackwell et al. (2004) reported little statistically significant changes in observations took place concurrent with or no reaction of ringed seals in diving parameters were documented in pipe-driving activities). One seal response to pile-driving activities nine individuals. Translocated northern showed no reaction to the aircraft while during construction of a man-made elephant seals exposed to this particular the remaining 11 (92%) reacted either island in the Beaufort Sea. Ringed seals non-pulse source began to demonstrate by looking at the helicopter (n=10) or by were observed swimming as close as subtle behavioral changes at exposure to departing from their basking site (n=1). 151 ft (46 m) from the island and may received levels of approximately 120 to Blackwell et al. (2004a) concluded that have been habituated to the sounds 140 dB. none of the reactions to helicopters were which were likely audible at distances Kastelein et al. (2006) exposed nine strong or long lasting, and that seals <9,842 ft (3,000 m) underwater and 0.3 captive harbor seals in an approximately near Northstar in June and July 2000 mi (0.5 km) in air. Moulton et al. (2003) 82 × 98 ft (25 × 30 m) enclosure to non- probably had habituated to industrial reported that ringed seal densities on ice pulse sounds used in underwater data sounds and visible activities that had in the vicinity of a man-made island in communication systems (similar to occurred often during the preceding the Beaufort Sea did not change acoustic modems). Test signals were winter and spring. There have been few significantly before and after frequency modulated tones, sweeps, and systematic studies of pinniped reactions construction and drilling activities. bands of noise with fundamental to aircraft overflights, and most of the Southall et al. (2007) reviewed frequencies between 8 and 16 kHz; 128 available data concern pinnipeds hauled literature describing responses of to 130 [± 3] dB source levels; 1- to 2-s out on land or ice rather than pinnipeds pinnipeds to non-pulsed sound and duration [60–80 percent duty cycle]; or in the water (Richardson et al., 1995a; reported that the limited data suggest 100 percent duty cycle. They recorded Born et al., 1999). exposures between approximately 90 seal positions and the mean number of Born et al. (1999) determined that 49 and 140 dB generally do not appear to individual surfacing behaviors during percent of ringed seals escaped (i.e., left induce strong behavioral responses in control periods (no exposure), before the ice) as a response to a helicopter pinnipeds exposed to non-pulse sounds exposure, and in 15-min experimental flying at 492 ft (150 m) altitude. Seals in water; no data exist regarding sessions (n = 7 exposures for each sound entered the water when the helicopter exposures at higher levels. It is type). Seals generally swam away from was 4,101 ft (1,250 m) away if the seal important to note that among these each source at received levels of was in front of the helicopter and at studies, there are some apparent approximately 107 dB, avoiding it by 1,640 ft (500 m) away if the seal was to differences in responses between field approximately 16 ft (5 m), although they the side of the helicopter. The authors and laboratory conditions. In contrast to did not haul out of the water or change noted that more seals reacted to the mid-frequency odontocetes, captive surfacing behavior. Seal reactions did helicopters than to fixed-wing aircraft. pinnipeds responded more strongly at not appear to wane over repeated The study concluded that the risk of lower levels than did animals in the exposure (i.e., there was no obvious scaring ringed seals by small-type field. Again, contextual issues are the habituation), and the colony of seals helicopters could be substantially likely cause of this difference. generally returned to baseline reduced if they do not approach closer Jacobs and Terhune (2002) observed conditions following exposure. The than 4,921 ft (1,500 m). harbor seal reactions to AHDs (source seals were not reinforced with food for Spotted seals hauled out on land in level in this study was 172 dB) remaining in the sound field. summer are unusually sensitive to deployed around aquaculture sites. Potential effects to pinnipeds from aircraft overflights compared to other Seals were generally unresponsive to aircraft activity could involve both species. They often rush into the water sounds from the AHDs. During two acoustic and non-acoustic effects. It is when an aircraft flies by at altitudes up specific events, individuals came within uncertain if the seals react to the sound to 984–2,461 ft (300–750 m). They

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11738 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

occasionally react to aircraft flying as (2) Masking anticipated to be limited, especially in high as 4,495 ft (1,370 m) and at lateral As stated earlier in this document, the case of odontocetes, given that they distances as far as 1.2 mi (2 km) or more masking is the obscuring of sounds of typically communicate at frequencies (Frost and Lowry, 1990; Rugh et al., interest by other sounds, often at similar higher than those of the airguns. 1997). frequencies. For full details about (3) Behavioral Disturbance Reactions (4) Hearing Impairment and Other masking, see the previous subsection in As was described in more detail in the Physiological Effects this document (‘‘Potential Effects from previous sub-section (‘‘Potential Effects Exploratory Drilling Activities’’). Some Temporary or permanent hearing of Exploratory Drilling Activities’’), additional information regarding pulsed impairment is a possibility when marine behavioral responses to sound are sounds is provided here. highly variable and context-specific. mammals are exposed to very strong There is evidence of some marine sounds. Non-auditory physiological Summaries of observed reactions and mammal species continuing to call in studies related to seismic airgun activity effects might also occur in marine the presence of industrial activity. mammals exposed to strong underwater are provided next. McDonald et al. (1995) heard blue and Baleen Whales—Baleen whale sound. Possible types of non-auditory fin whale calls between seismic pulses physiological effects or injuries that responses to pulsed sound (e.g., seismic in the Pacific. Although there has been airguns) have been studied more theoretically might occur in mammals one report that sperm whales cease close to a strong sound source include thoroughly than responses to calling when exposed to pulses from a continuous sound (e.g., drillships). stress, neurological effects, bubble very distant seismic ship (Bowles et al., formation, and other types of organ or Baleen whales generally tend to avoid 1994), a more recent study reported that operating airguns, but avoidance radii tissue damage. It is possible that some sperm whales off northern Norway marine mammal species (i.e., beaked are quite variable. Whales are often continued calling in the presence of reported to show no overt reactions to whales) may be especially susceptible to seismic pulses (Madsen et al., 2002). injury and/or stranding when exposed pulses from large arrays of airguns at Similar results were also reported distances beyond a few kilometers, even to strong pulsed sounds. However, as during work in the Gulf of Mexico discussed later in this document, there though the airgun pulses remain well (Tyack et al., 2003). Bowhead whale above ambient noise levels out to much is no definitive evidence that any of calls are frequently detected in the these effects occur even for marine greater distances (Miller et al., 2005). presence of seismic pulses, although the However, baleen whales exposed to mammals in close proximity to numbers of calls detected may industrial sound sources, and beaked strong noise pulses often react by sometimes be reduced (Richardson et deviating from their normal migration whales do not occur in the proposed al., 1986; Greene et al., 1999; Blackwell activity area. Additional information route (Richardson et al., 1999). et al., 2009a). Bowhead whales in the Migrating gray and bowhead whales regarding the possibilities of TTS, Beaufort Sea may decrease their call permanent threshold shift (PTS), and were observed avoiding the sound rates in response to seismic operations, source by displacing their migration non-auditory physiological effects, such although movement out of the area as stress, is discussed for both route to varying degrees but within the might also have contributed to the lower natural boundaries of the migration exploratory drilling activities and ZVSP call detection rate (Blackwell et al., corridors (Schick and Urban, 2000; surveys in the following section 2009a,b). Additionally, there is Richardson et al., 1999; Malme et al., (‘‘Potential Effects from Zero-Offset increasing evidence that, at times, there 1983). Baleen whale responses to pulsed Vertical Seismic Profile Activities’’). is enough reverberation between airgun sound however may depend on the type Potential Effects From Zero-Offset pulses such that detection range of calls of activity in which the whales are Vertical Seismic Profile Activities may be significantly reduced. In engaged. Some evidence suggests that contrast, Di Iorio and Clark (2009) found feeding bowhead whales may be more (1) Tolerance evidence of increased calling by blue tolerant of underwater sound than Numerous studies have shown that whales during operations by a lower- migrating bowheads (Miller et al., 2005; pulsed sounds from airguns are often energy seismic source, a sparker. Lyons et al., 2009; Christie et al., 2010). readily detectable in the water at There is little concern regarding Results of studies of gray, bowhead, distances of many kilometers. Weir masking due to the brief duration of and humpback whales have determined (2008) observed marine mammal these pulses and relatively longer that received levels of pulses in the responses to seismic pulses from a 24 silence between airgun shots (9–12 160–170 dB re 1 mPa rms range seem to airgun array firing a total volume of seconds) near the sound source. cause obvious avoidance behavior in a either 5,085 in3 or 3,147 in3 in Angolan However, at long distances (over tens of substantial fraction of the animals waters between August 2004 and May kilometers away) in deep water, due to exposed. In many areas, seismic pulses 2005. Weir recorded a total of 207 multipath propagation and from large arrays of airguns diminish to sightings of humpback whales (n = 66), reverberation, the durations of airgun those levels at distances ranging from sperm whales (n = 124), and Atlantic pulses can be ‘‘stretched’’ to seconds 2.8–9 mi (4.5–14.5 km) from the source. spotted dolphins (n = 17) and reported with long decays (Madsen et al., 2006; For the much smaller airgun array used that there were no significant Clark and Gagnon, 2006). Therefore it during the ZVSP survey (total discharge differences in encounter rates could affect communication signals volume of 760 in3), distances to (sightings/hr) for humpback and sperm used by low frequency mysticetes when received levels in the 170–160 dB re 1 whales according to the airgun array’s they occur near the noise band and thus mPa rms range are estimated to be 1.44– operational status (i.e., active versus reduce the communication space of 2.28 mi (2.31–3.67 km). Baleen whales silent). For additional information on animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009a,b) and within those distances may show tolerance of marine mammals to cause increased stress levels (e.g., Foote avoidance or other strong disturbance anthropogenic sound, see the previous et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2009). reactions to the airgun array. Subtle subsection in this document (‘‘Potential Nevertheless, the intensity of the noise behavioral changes sometimes become Effects from Exploratory Drilling is also greatly reduced at long distances. evident at somewhat lower received Activities’’). Therefore, masking effects are levels, and recent studies have shown

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11739

that some species of baleen whales, increased by approximately 3.4% per Reactions of toothed whales to large notably bowhead and humpback year for the last 10 years in the Beaufort arrays of airguns are variable and, at whales, at times show strong avoidance Sea (Allen and Angliss, 2011). In any least for delphinids, seem to be confined at received levels lower than 160–170 event, the brief exposures to sound to a smaller radius than has been dB re 1 mPa rms. Bowhead whales pulses from the proposed airgun source observed for mysticetes. However, based migrating west across the Alaskan (the airguns will only be fired for a on the limited existing evidence, Beaufort Sea in autumn, in particular, period of 10–14 hours for each of the belugas should not be grouped with are unusually responsive, with three, possibly four, wells) are highly delphinids in the ‘‘less responsive’’ avoidance occurring out to distances of unlikely to result in prolonged effects. category. 12.4–18.6 mi (20–30 km) from a Toothed Whales—Few systematic Pinnipeds—Pinnipeds are not likely medium-sized airgun source (Miller et data are available describing reactions of to show a strong avoidance reaction to al., 1999; Richardson et al., 1999). toothed whales to noise pulses. Few the airgun sources proposed for use. However, more recent research on studies similar to the more extensive Visual monitoring from seismic vessels bowhead whales (Miller et al., 2005) baleen whale/seismic pulse work has shown only slight (if any) avoidance corroborates earlier evidence that, summarized earlier in this document of airguns by pinnipeds and only slight during the summer feeding season, have been reported for toothed whales. (if any) changes in behavior. Ringed bowheads are not as sensitive to seismic However, systematic work on sperm seals frequently do not avoid the area sources. In summer, bowheads typically whales is underway (Tyack et al., 2003), within a few hundred meters of begin to show avoidance reactions at a and there is an increasing amount of operating airgun arrays (Harris et al., received level of about 160–170 dB re 1 information about responses of various 2001; Moulton and Lawson, 2002; mPa rms (Richardson et al., 1986; odontocetes to seismic surveys based on Miller et al., 2005). Monitoring work in Ljungblad et al., 1988; Miller et al., monitoring studies (e.g., Stone, 2003; the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during 1996– 2005). Smultea et al., 2004; Moulton and 2001 provided considerable information Malme et al. (1986, 1988) studied the Miller, 2005). regarding the behavior of seals exposed responses of feeding eastern gray whales Seismic operators and marine to seismic pulses (Harris et al., 2001; to pulses from a single 100 in3 airgun off mammal observers sometimes see Moulton and Lawson, 2002). These St. Lawrence Island in the northern dolphins and other small toothed seismic projects usually involved arrays Bering Sea. They estimated, based on whales near operating airgun arrays, of 6 to 16 airguns with total volumes of small sample sizes, that 50% of feeding but, in general, there seems to be a 560 to 1,500 in3 gray whales ceased feeding at an average . The combined results tendency for most delphinids to show received pressure level of 173 dB re 1 suggest that some seals avoid the some limited avoidance of seismic mPa on an (approximate) rms basis, and immediate area around seismic vessels. vessels operating large airgun systems. that 10% of feeding whales interrupted In most survey years, ringed seal However, some dolphins seem to be feeding at received levels of 163 dB. sightings tended to be farther away from attracted to the seismic vessel and Those findings were generally the seismic vessel when the airguns consistent with the results of floats, and some ride the bow wave of were operating than when they were not experiments conducted on larger the seismic vessel even when large (Moulton and Lawson, 2002). However, numbers of gray whales that were arrays of airguns are firing. Nonetheless, these avoidance movements were migrating along the California coast and there have been indications that small relatively small, on the order of 328 ft on observations of the distribution of toothed whales sometimes move away (100 m) to a few hundreds of meters, feeding Western Pacific gray whales off or maintain a somewhat greater distance and many seals remained within 328– Sakhalin Island, Russia, during a from the vessel when a large array of 656 ft (100–200 m) of the trackline as seismic survey (Yazvenko et al., 2007). airguns is operating than when it is the operating airgun array passed by. Data on short-term reactions (or lack silent (e.g., Goold, 1996a,b,c; Seal sighting rates at the water surface of reactions) of cetaceans to impulsive Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Stone, were lower during airgun array noises do not necessarily provide 2003). The beluga may be a species that operations than during no-airgun information about long-term effects. (at least at times) shows long-distance periods in each survey year except 1997. While it is not certain whether avoidance of seismic vessels. Aerial Similarly, seals are often very tolerant of impulsive noises affect reproductive surveys during seismic operations in the pulsed sounds from seal-scaring devices rate or distribution and habitat use in southeastern Beaufort Sea recorded (Mate and Harvey, 1987; Jefferson and subsequent days or years, certain much lower sighting rates of beluga Curry, 1994; Richardson et al., 1995a). species have continued to use areas whales within 6.2–12.4 mi (10–20 km) However, initial telemetry work ensonified by airguns and have of an active seismic vessel. These results suggests that avoidance and other continued to increase in number despite were consistent with the low number of behavioral reactions by two other successive years of anthropogenic beluga sightings reported by observers species of seals to small airgun sources activity in the area. Gray whales aboard the seismic vessel, suggesting may at times be stronger than evident to continued to migrate annually along the that some belugas might be avoiding the date from visual studies of pinniped west coast of North America despite seismic operations at distances of 6.2– reactions to airguns (Thompson et al., intermittent seismic exploration and 12.4 mi (10–20 km) (Miller et al., 2005). 1998). Even if reactions of the species much ship traffic in that area for Captive bottlenose dolphins and (of occurring in the present study area are decades (Appendix A in Malme et al., more relevance in this project) beluga as strong as those evident in the 1984). Bowhead whales continued to whales exhibit changes in behavior telemetry study, reactions are expected travel to the eastern Beaufort Sea each when exposed to strong pulsed sounds to be confined to relatively small summer despite seismic exploration in similar in duration to those typically distances and durations, with no long- their summer and autumn range for used in seismic surveys (Finneran et al., term effects on pinniped individuals or many years (Richardson et al., 1987). 2002, 2005). However, the animals populations. Additionally, the airguns Populations of both gray whales and tolerated high received levels of sound are only proposed to be used for a short bowhead whales grew substantially (pk–pk level >200 dB re 1 mPa) before time during the exploration drilling during this time. Bowhead whales have exhibiting aversive behaviors. program (approximately 10–14 hours for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11740 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

each well, for a total of 40–56 hours, studies on the bottlenose dolphin and approximately 171 dB re 1 mPa2·s and more likely to be 30–42 hours if the beluga. For the one harbor porpoise (Southall et al., 2007) which would be fourth well is not completed, over the tested, the received level of airgun equivalent to a single pulse with a entire open-water season, which lasts sound that elicited onset of TTS was received level of approximately 181 to for approximately 4 months). lower (Lucke et al., 2009). If these 186 dB re 1 mPa (rms), or a series of results from a single animal are (4) Hearing Impairment and Other pulses for which the highest rms values representative, it is inappropriate to Physiological Effects are a few dB lower. Corresponding assume that onset of TTS occurs at values for California sea lions and TTS—TTS is the mildest form of similar received levels in all northern elephant seals are likely to be hearing impairment that can occur odontocetes (cf. Southall et al., 2007). higher (Kastak et al., 2005). For harbor during exposure to a strong sound Some cetaceans apparently can incur seal, which is closely related to the (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, TTS at considerably lower sound ringed seal, TTS onset apparently the hearing threshold rises, and a sound exposures than are necessary to elicit occurs at somewhat lower received must be stronger in order to be heard. TTS in the beluga or bottlenose dolphin. energy levels than for odonotocetes. The At least in terrestrial mammals, TTS can For baleen whales, there are no data, sound level necessary to cause TTS in last from minutes or hours to (in cases direct or indirect, on levels or properties pinnipeds depends on exposure of strong TTS) days, can be limited to of sound that are required to induce duration, as in other mammals; with a particular frequency range, and can be TTS. The frequencies to which baleen longer exposure, the level necessary to in varying degrees (i.e., a loss of a whales are most sensitive are assumed elicit TTS is reduced (Schusterman et certain number of dBs of sensitivity). to be lower than those to which al., 2000; Kastak et al., 2005, 2007). For For sound exposures at or somewhat odontocetes are most sensitive, and very short exposures (e.g., to a single above the TTS threshold, hearing natural background noise levels at those sound pulse), the level necessary to sensitivity in both terrestrial and marine low frequencies tend to be higher. As a cause TTS is very high (Finneran et al., mammals recovers rapidly after result, auditory thresholds of baleen 2003). For pinnipeds exposed to in-air exposure to the noise ends. Few data on whales within their frequency band of sounds, auditory fatigue has been sound levels and durations necessary to best hearing are believed to be higher measured in response to single pulses elicit mild TTS have been obtained for (less sensitive) than are those of and to non-pulse noise (Southall et al., marine mammals, and none of the odontocetes at their best frequencies 2007), although high exposure levels published data concern TTS elicited by (Clark and Ellison, 2004), meaning that were required to induce TTS-onset exposure to multiple pulses of sound. baleen whales require sounds to be (SEL: 129 dB re: 20 mPa2.s; Bowles et al., Marine mammal hearing plays a louder (i.e., higher dB levels) than unpub. data). critical role in communication with odontocetes in the frequency ranges at conspecifics and in interpretation of which each group hears the best. From NMFS has established acoustic environmental cues for purposes such this, it is suspected that received levels thresholds that identify the received as predator avoidance and prey capture. causing TTS onset may also be higher in sound levels above which hearing Depending on the degree (elevation of baleen whales (Southall et al., 2007). impairment or other injury could threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery Since current NMFS practice assumes potentially occur, which are 180 and time), and frequency range of TTS and the same thresholds for the onset of 190 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for cetaceans and the context in which it is experienced, hearing impairment in both odontocetes pinnipeds, respectively (NMFS 1995, TTS can have effects on marine and mysticetes, NMFS’ onset of TTS 2000). The established 180- and 190-dB mammals ranging from discountable to threshold is likely conservative for criteria were established before serious. For example, a marine mammal mysticetes. For this proposed activity, additional TTS measurements for may be able to readily compensate for Shell expects no cases of TTS given the marine mammals became available, and a brief, relatively small amount of TTS strong likelihood that baleen whales represent the received levels above in a non-critical frequency range that would avoid the airguns before being which one could not be certain there takes place during a time when the exposed to levels high enough for TTS would be no injurious effects, auditory animal is traveling through the open to occur. The source levels of the or otherwise, to marine mammals. TTS ocean, where ambient noise is lower drilling units are far lower than those of is considered by NMFS to be a type of and there are not as many competing the airguns. Level B (non-injurious) harassment. The sounds present. Alternatively, a larger In pinnipeds, TTS thresholds 180- and 190-dB levels are also typically amount and longer duration of TTS associated with exposure to brief pulses used as shutdown criteria for mitigation sustained during a time when (single or multiple) of underwater sound applicable to cetaceans and pinnipeds, communication is critical for successful have not been measured. However, respectively, as specified by NMFS mother/calf interactions could have systematic TTS studies on captive (2000) and are used to establish more serious impacts if it were in the pinnipeds have been conducted (Bowles exclusion zones (EZs), as appropriate. same frequency band as the necessary et al., 1999; Kastak et al., 1999, 2005, Additionally, based on the summary vocalizations and of a severity that it 2007; Schusterman et al., 2000; provided here and the fact that impeded communication. The fact that Finneran et al., 2003; Southall et al., modeling indicates the back-propagated animals exposed to levels and durations 2007). Initial evidence from more source level for the Discoverer to be of sound that would be expected to prolonged (non-pulse) exposures between 177 and 185 dB re 1 mPa at 1 result in this physiological response suggested that some pinnipeds (harbor m (Austin and Warner, 2010), TTS is would also be expected to have seals in particular) incur TTS at not expected to occur in any marine behavioral responses of a comparatively somewhat lower received levels than do mammal species that may occur in the more severe or sustained nature is also small odontocetes exposed for similar proposed drilling area since the source notable and potentially of more durations (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; level will not reach levels thought to importance than the simple existence of Ketten et al., 2001; cf. Au et al., 2000). induce even mild TTS. While the source a TTS. The TTS threshold for pulsed sounds level of the airgun is higher than the Researchers have derived TTS has been indirectly estimated as being a 190-dB threshold level, an animal information for odontocetes from sound exposure level (SEL) of would have to be in very close

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11741

proximity to be exposed to such levels. to a drilling unit would likely not be system, the gastrointestinal system, the Additionally, the 180- and 190-dB radii exposed to received sound levels of a exocrine glands, and the adrenal for the airgun are 0.8 mi (1.24 km) and magnitude strong enough to induce medulla to produce changes in heart 0.3 mi (524 m), respectively, from the PTS, even if the animals remain in the rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal source. Because of the short duration immediate vicinity of the proposed activity that humans commonly that the airguns will be used (no more activity location for a prolonged period associate with ‘‘stress.’’ These responses than 30–56 hours throughout the entire of time. Because the source levels do not have a relatively short duration and may open-water season) and mitigation and reach the threshold of 190 dB currently or may not have significant long-term monitoring measures described later in used for pinnipeds and is at the 180 dB effects on an animal’s welfare. this document, hearing impairment is threshold currently used for cetaceans, An animal’s third line of defense to not anticipated. it is highly unlikely that any type of stressors involves its neuroendocrine or PTS—When PTS occurs, there is hearing impairment, temporary or sympathetic nervous systems; the physical damage to the sound receptors permanent, would occur as a result of system that has received the most study in the ear. In some cases, there can be the exploration drilling activities. has been the hypothalmus-pituitary- total or partial deafness, whereas in Additionally, Southall et al. (2007) adrenal system (also known as the HPA other cases, the animal has an impaired proposed that the thresholds for injury axis in mammals or the hypothalamus- ability to hear sounds in specific of marine mammals exposed to pituitary-interrenal axis in fish and frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985). ‘‘discrete’’ noise events (either single or some reptiles). Unlike stress responses There is no specific evidence that multiple exposures over a 24-hr period) associated with the autonomic nervous exposure to underwater industrial are higher than the 180- and 190-dB re system, virtually all neuroendocrine sound associated with oil exploration 1 mPa (rms) in-water threshold currently functions that are affected by stress— can cause PTS in any marine mammal used by NMFS. including immune competence, (see Southall et al., 2007). However, Non-auditory Physiological Effects— reproduction, metabolism, and given the possibility that mammals Non-auditory physiological effects or behavior—are regulated by pituitary might incur TTS, there has been further injuries that theoretically might occur in hormones. Stress-induced changes in speculation about the possibility that marine mammals exposed to strong the secretion of pituitary hormones have some individuals occurring very close to underwater sound include stress, been implicated in failed reproduction such activities might incur PTS (e.g., neurological effects, bubble formation, (Moberg, 1987; Rivier, 1995), altered Richardson et al., 1995, p. 372ff; and other types of organ or tissue metabolism (Elasser et al., 2000), Gedamke et al., 2008). Single or damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., reduced immune competence (Blecha, occasional occurrences of mild TTS are 2007). Studies examining any such 2000), and behavioral disturbance. not indicative of permanent auditory effects are limited. If any such effects do Increases in the circulation of damage in terrestrial mammals. occur, they probably would be limited glucocorticosteroids (cortisol, Relationships between TTS and PTS to unusual situations when animals corticosterone, and aldosterone in thresholds have not been studied in might be exposed at close range for marine mammals; see Romano et al., marine mammals but are assumed to be unusually long periods. It is doubtful 2004) have been equated with stress for similar to those in humans and other that any single marine mammal would many years. terrestrial mammals (Southall et al., be exposed to strong sounds for The primary distinction between 2007; Le Prell, in press). PTS might sufficiently long that significant stress (which is adaptive and does not occur at a received sound level at least physiological stress would develop. normally place an animal at risk) and several decibels above that inducing Classic stress responses begin when distress is the biotic cost of the mild TTS. Based on data from terrestrial an animal’s central nervous system response. During a stress response, an mammals, a precautionary assumption perceives a potential threat to its animal uses glycogen stores that can be is that the PTS threshold for impulse homeostasis. That perception triggers quickly replenished once the stress is sounds (such as airgun pulses as stress responses regardless of whether a alleviated. In such circumstances, the received close to the source) is at least stimulus actually threatens the animal; cost of the stress response would not 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on the mere perception of a threat is pose a risk to the animal’s welfare. a peak-pressure basis and probably sufficient to trigger a stress response However, when an animal does not have greater than 6 dB (Southall et al., 2007). (Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky et al., 2005; sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the It is highly unlikely that marine Seyle, 1950). Once an animal’s central energetic costs of a stress response, mammals could receive sounds strong nervous system perceives a threat, it energy resources must be diverted from enough (and over a sufficient duration) mounts a biological response or defense other biotic functions, which impair to cause PTS during the proposed that consists of a combination of the those functions that experience the exploratory drilling program. As four general biological defense diversion. For example, when mounting mentioned previously in this document, responses: behavioral responses; a stress response diverts energy away the source levels of the drilling units are autonomic nervous system responses; from growth in young animals, those not considered strong enough to cause neuroendocrine responses; or immune animals may experience stunted growth. even slight TTS. Given the higher level responses. When mounting a stress response of sound necessary to cause PTS, it is In the case of many stressors, an diverts energy from a fetus, an animal’s even less likely that PTS could occur. In animal’s first and most economical (in reproductive success and fitness will fact, based on the modeled source levels terms of biotic costs) response is suffer. In these cases, the animals will for the drilling units, the levels behavioral avoidance of the potential have entered a pre-pathological or immediately adjacent to the drilling stressor or avoidance of continued pathological state which is called units may not be sufficient to induce exposure to a stressor. An animal’s ‘‘distress’’ (sensu Seyle, 1950) or PTS, even if the animals remain in the second line of defense to stressors ‘‘allostatic loading’’ (sensu McEwen and immediate vicinity of the activity. The involves the sympathetic part of the Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state modeled source level from the autonomic nervous system and the will last until the animal replenishes its Discoverer suggests that marine classical ‘‘fight or flight’’ response, biotic reserves sufficient to restore mammals located immediately adjacent which includes the cardiovascular normal function. Note that these

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11742 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

examples involved a long-term (days or Therefore, we assume that acoustic auditory organs are especially weeks) stress response exposure to exposures sufficient to trigger onset PTS susceptible to injury (Ketten et al., 1993; stimuli. or TTS would be accompanied by Ketten, 1995). However, explosives are Relationships between these physiological stress responses because no longer used for marine waters for physiological mechanisms, animal terrestrial animals exhibit those commercial seismic surveys; they have behavior, and the costs of stress responses under similar conditions been replaced entirely by airguns or responses have also been documented (NRC, 2003). More importantly, marine related non-explosive pulse generators. fairly well through controlled mammals might experience stress Underwater sound from drilling, experiment; because this physiology responses at received levels lower than support activities, and airgun arrays is exists in every vertebrate that has been those necessary to trigger onset TTS. less energetic and has slower rise times, studied, it is not surprising that stress Based on empirical studies of the time and there is no proof that they can cause responses and their costs have been required to recover from stress serious injury, death, or stranding, even documented in both laboratory and free- responses (Moberg, 2000), NMFS also in the case of large airgun arrays. living animals (for examples see, assumes that stress responses could However, the association of mass Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; persist beyond the time interval strandings of beaked whales with naval Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., required for animals to recover from exercises involving mid-frequency 2004; Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens TTS and might result in pathological active sonar, and, in one case, et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer, and pre-pathological states that would coinciding with a Lamont-Doherty Earth 2000). Although no information has be as significant as behavioral responses Observatory (L–DEO) seismic survey been collected on the physiological to TTS. However, as stated previously in (Malakoff, 2002; Cox et al., 2006), has responses of marine mammals to this document, the source levels of the raised the possibility that beaked whales anthropogenic sound exposure, studies drilling units are not loud enough to exposed to strong pulsed sounds may be of other marine animals and terrestrial induce PTS or likely even TTS. especially susceptible to injury and/or animals would lead us to expect some Resonance effects (Gentry, 2002) and behavioral reactions that can lead to marine mammals to experience direct noise-induced bubble formations stranding (e.g., Hildebrand, 2005; physiological stress responses and, (Crum et al., 2005) are implausible in Southall et al., 2007). perhaps, physiological responses that the case of exposure to an impulsive Specific sound-related processes that would be classified as ‘‘distress’’ upon broadband source like an airgun array. lead to strandings and mortality are not exposure to anthropogenic sounds. If seismic surveys disrupt diving well documented, but may include: For example, Jansen (1998) reported patterns of deep-diving species, this (1) Swimming in avoidance of a on the relationship between acoustic might result in bubble formation and a sound into shallow water; exposures and physiological responses form of the bends, as speculated to (2) A change in behavior (such as a that are indicative of stress responses in occur in beaked whales exposed to change in diving behavior) that might humans (e.g., elevated respiration and sonar. However, there is no specific contribute to tissue damage, gas bubble increased heart rates). Jones (1998) evidence of this upon exposure to formation, hypoxia, cardiac arrhythmia, reported on reductions in human airgun pulses. Additionally, no beaked hypertensive hemorrhage or other forms performance when faced with acute, whale species occur in the proposed of trauma; repetitive exposures to acoustic exploration drilling area. (3) A physiological change, such as a disturbance. Trimper et al. (1998) In general, very little is known about vestibular response leading to a reported on the physiological stress the potential for strong, anthropogenic behavioral change or stress-induced responses of osprey to low-level aircraft underwater sounds to cause non- hemorrhagic diathesis, leading in turn noise while Krausman et al. (2004) auditory physical effects in marine to tissue damage; and reported on the auditory and physiology mammals. Such effects, if they occur at (4) Tissue damage directly from sound stress responses of endangered Sonoran all, would presumably be limited to exposure, such as through acoustically- pronghorn to military overflights. Smith short distances and to activities that mediated bubble formation and growth et al. (2004a, 2004b) identified noise- extend over a prolonged period. The or acoustic resonance of tissues. induced physiological transient stress available data do not allow Some of these mechanisms are responses in hearing-specialist fish (i.e., identification of a specific exposure unlikely to apply in the case of impulse goldfish) that accompanied short- and level above which non-auditory effects sounds. However, there are indications long-term hearing losses. Welch and can be expected (Southall et al., 2007) that gas-bubble disease (analogous to Welch (1970) reported physiological or any meaningful quantitative ‘‘the bends’’), induced in supersaturated and behavioral stress responses that predictions of the numbers (if any) of tissue by a behavioral response to accompanied damage to the inner ears marine mammals that might be affected acoustic exposure, could be a pathologic of fish and several mammals. in those ways. The low levels of mechanism for the strandings and Hearing is one of the primary senses continuous sound that will be produced mortality of some deep-diving cetaceans marine mammals use to gather by the drilling units are not expected to exposed to sonar. However, the information about their environment cause such effects. Additionally, marine evidence for this remains circumstantial and communicate with conspecifics. mammals that show behavioral and is associated with exposure to naval Although empirical information on the avoidance of the proposed activities, mid-frequency sonar, not seismic relationship between sensory including most baleen whales, some surveys or exploratory drilling programs impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic odontocetes (including belugas), and (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007). masking) on marine mammals remains some pinnipeds, are especially unlikely Both seismic pulses and continuous limited, it seems reasonable to assume to incur auditory impairment or other drillship sounds are quite different from that reducing an animal’s ability to physical effects. mid-frequency sonar signals, and some gather information about its mechanisms by which sonar sounds environment and to communicate with (5) Stranding and Mortality have been hypothesized to affect beaked other members of its species would be Marine mammals close to underwater whales are unlikely to apply to airgun stressful for animals that use hearing as detonations of high explosives can be pulses or drillships. Sounds produced their primary sensory mechanism. killed or severely injured, and the by airgun arrays are broadband impulses

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11743

with most of the energy below 1 kHz, anticipated during the proposed Modeling of similar discharges and the low-energy continuous sounds exploratory drilling program because offshore of Sakhalin Island predicted a produced by drillships have most of the none occur in the proposed area. 1,000-fold dilution within 10 minutes energy between 20 and 1,000 Hz. and 330 ft (100 m) of the discharge. In Potential Impacts From Drilling Wastes Additionally, the non-impulsive, a field study (O’Reilly et al. 1989) of a continuous sounds produced by the Shell will discharge drilling wastes to drilling waste discharge offshore of drilling units proposed to be used by the Chukchi Sea. These discharges will California, a 270 bbl (43 m3) discharge Shell do not have rapid rise times. Rise be authorized under the EPA’s National of drilling wastes was found to be time is the fluctuation in sound levels Pollutant Discharge Elimination System diluted 183-fold at 33 ft (10 m) and of the source. The type of sound that (NPDES) General Permit for Oil and Gas 1,049-fold at 330 ft (100 m). Neff (2005) would be produced during the proposed Exploration Activities on the Outer concluded that concentrations of drilling program will be constant and Continental Shelf in the Chukchi Sea discharged drilling waste would will not exhibit any sudden fluctuations (AKG–28–8100; ‘‘NPDES exploration diminish to levels that would have no or changes. Typical military mid- facilities GP’’). This permit establishes effect within about two minutes of frequency sonar emits non-impulse various limits and conditions on the discharge and within 16 ft (5 m) of the sounds at frequencies of 2–10 kHz, authorized discharges, and the EPA has discharge location. generally with a relatively narrow determined that with these limits and Discharges of drilling wastes could bandwidth at any one time. A further conditions the discharges will not result potentially displace marine mammals a difference between them is that naval in any unreasonable degradation of short distance from a drilling location. exercises can involve sound sources on ocean waters. However, it is likely that marine more than one vessel. Thus, it is not Under the NPDES exploration mammals will have already avoided the appropriate to assume that there is a facilities GP, drilling wastes to be area due to sound energy generated by direct connection between the effects of discharged must have a 96-hr Lethal the drilling activities. Baleen whales, such as bowheads, military sonar and oil and gas industry Concentration 50 percent (LC50) tend to avoid drilling units at distances operations on marine mammals. toxicity of 30,000 parts per million or up to 12 mi (20 km). Therefore, it is However, evidence that sonar signals greater at the point of discharge. Both highly unlikely that the whales will can, in special circumstances, lead (at modeling and field studies have shown swim or feed in close enough proximity least indirectly) to physical damage and that discharged drilling wastes are of discharges to be affected. The levels mortality (e.g., Balcomb and Claridge, diluted rapidly in receiving waters of drilling waste discharges are 2001; NOAA and USN, 2001; Jepson et (Ayers et al. 1980a, 1980b, Brandsma et regulated by the NPDES exploration al., 2003; Ferna´ndez et al., 2004, 2005; al. 1980, NRC 1983, O’Reilly et al. 1989, Hildebrand, 2005; Cox et al., 2006) facilities GP. The impact of drilling Nedwed et al. 2004, Smith et al. 2004; waste discharges would be localized suggests that caution is warranted when Neff 2005). The dilution is strongly and temporary. Drilling waste dealing with exposure of marine affected by the discharge rate. The discharges could displace endangered mammals to any high-intensity NPDES exploration facilities GP limits whales (bowhead and humpback ‘‘pulsed’’ sound. the discharge of drilling wastes to 1,000 3 whales) a short distance from a drill There is no conclusive evidence of bbl/hr (159 m /hr). For example, site. Effects on the whales present cetacean strandings or deaths at sea as TetraTech (2011) modeled hypothetical within a few meters of the discharge 3 a result of exposure to seismic surveys, 1,000 bbl/hr (159 m /hr) discharges of point would be expected, primarily due but a few cases of strandings in the drilling wastes in water depths of 131– to sedimentation. However, endangered general area where a seismic survey was 164 ft (40–50 m) in the Beaufort and whales are not likely to have long-term ongoing have led to speculation Chukchi Seas for the EPA and predicted exposures to drilling wastes because of concerning a possible link between dilution factors of 950–17,500 at a the episodic nature of discharges seismic surveys and strandings. distance of 330 ft (100 m) from the (typically only a few hours in duration). Suggestions that there was a link discharge point. Like other baleen whales, gray whales between seismic surveys and strandings The primary effect of the drilling will more than likely avoid drilling of humpback whales in Brazil (Engel et waste discharges will be increases in activities and therefore not come into al., 2004) were not well founded (IAGC, total suspended solids (TSS) in the close contact with drilling wastes. Gray 2004; IWC, 2007). In September 2002, water column and localized increase in whales are benthic feeders and the there was a stranding of two Cuvier’s sedimentation on the sea floor. Shell seafloor area covered by accumulations beaked whales in the Gulf of California, conducted dispersion modeling of the of discharged drilling wastes will be Mexico, when the L–DEO vessel R/V drilling waste discharges using the unavailable to the whales for foraging Maurice Ewing was operating a 20 Offshore Operators Committee Mud and purposes, and represents an indirect airgun (8,490 in3) array in the general Produced Water Discharge (OOC) model impact on these animals. Such indirect area. The link between the stranding (Fluid Dynamix 2014). Simulations impacts are negligible resulting in little and the seismic surveys was were performed for each of the six effect on individual whales and no inconclusive and not based on any discrete drilling intervals with two effect on the population, because such physical evidence (Hogarth, 2002; discharge locations: Seafloor and sea areas of disturbance will be few and in Yoder, 2002). Nonetheless, the Gulf of surface. The Burger Prospect wells are total will occur over a very small area California incident, plus the beaked all very similar in well design and site representing an extremely small portion whale strandings near naval exercises conditions so the simulation of available foraging habitat in the involving use of mid-frequency sonar, approximates the results for the all drill Chukchi Sea. Other baleen whales such suggests a need for caution in sites. The model results indicate that as the minke whale, which could be conducting seismic surveys in areas most of the increase in TSS will be found near the drill site, would not be occupied by beaked whales until more ameliorated within 984 ft (300 m) of the expected to be affected. is known about effects of seismic discharge locations through settling and Discharges of drilling wastes are not surveys on those species (Hildebrand, dispersion. Impacts to water quality will likely to affect beluga whales and other 2005). No injuries of beaked whales are cease when the discharge is concluded. odontocetes such as harbor porpoises

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11744 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

and killer whales. These marine in the Bering Sea, and then follow the production casing will not be installed, mammals will likely avoid the ice edge as it retreats in spring. Spotted and the well will be permanently immediate areas where drilling wastes seals are found in the Bering Sea in plugged and abandoned once will be discharged. Discharge modeling winter and spring where they breed, exploration drilling is complete. Shell performed for both the Discoverer and molt, and pup in large groups. Few has also developed and will implement the Polar Pioneer based on maximum spotted seals are expected to be the following plans and protocols: prevailing current speeds of 9.84 in/s encountered in the Chukchi Sea until Shell’s Critical Operations Curtailment (25 cm/s), shows that sedimentation July. Even then, they are rarely seen on Plan; DIMP; Well Control Plan; and Fuel depth of drilling wastes at greater than pack ice but are commonly observed Transfer Plan. Many of these safety 0.4 in (1 cm) thickness will occur within hauled out on land or swimming in measures are required by the approximately 1,641 (500 m) of the open water. Department of the Interior’s interim drilling unit discharge point (Fluid Based on extensive analysis of digital final rule implementing certain Dynamix, 2014b). Concentrations of imagery taken during aerial surveys in measures to improve the safety of oil TSS, a transient feature of the discharge, support of Shell’s 2012 operations in the and gas exploration and development are modeled to be below 15 mg/L at Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, ice seals are on the Outer Continental Shelf in light distances approximately 3,281 ft (1,000 very infrequently observed hauled out of the Deepwater Horizon event (see 75 m) from the drilling unit discharge on the ice in groups of greater than one FR 63346, October 14, 2010). point. Therefore, it is highly unlikely individual. Tens of thousands of images Operationally, Shell has committed to that beluga whales will come into from 17 flights that took place from July the following to help prevent an oil spill contact with any drilling discharge and through October were reviewed in from occurring in the Chukchi Sea: impacts are not expected. detail. Of 107 total observations of • Shell’s Blow Out Preventer (BOP) Seals are also not expected to be spotted or ringed seals on ice, only three was inspected and tested by an impacted by the discharges of drilling of those sightings were of a group of two independent third party specialist; wastes. It is highly unlikely that a seal or more individuals. Since seals are • Further inspection and testing of would remain within 330 ft (100 m) of found as individuals or in very small the BOP have been performed to ensure the discharge source for any extended groups when they are in the activity the reliability of the BOP and that all period of time but if they were to remain area, the chance of a stampede event is functions will be performed as within 330 ft (100 m) of the discharge very unlikely. Finally, ice seals are well necessary, including shearing the drill source for an extended period of time, adapted to move between ice and water pipe; it is possible that physiological effects without injury, including ‘‘escape • Shell will conduct a function test of due to toxins could impact the animal. reactions’’ to avoid predators. annular and ram BOPs every 7 days Potential Impacts From Drilling Units’ Exploratory Drilling Program and between pressure tests; Presence Potential for Oil Spill • A second set of blind/shear rams will be installed in the BOP stack; The length of the Discoverer at 514 ft As noted above, the specified activity • (156.7 m) and Polar Pioneer at 279 ft involves the drilling of exploratory Full string casings will typically not (85m) are not large enough to cause wells and associated activities in the be installed through high pressure large-scale diversions from the animals’ Chukchi Sea during the 2015 open- zones; • normal swim and migratory paths. The water season. The impacts to marine Liners will be installed and drilling units’ physical footprints are mammals that are reasonably expected cemented, which allows for installation small relative to the size of the to occur will be behavioral in nature. of a liner top packer; • geographic region either would occupy, The likelihood of a large or very large Testing of liners prior to installing and will likely not cause marine (i.e., ≥1,000 barrels or ≥150,000 barrels, a tieback string of casing back to the mammals to deflect greatly from their respectively) oil spill occurring during wellhead; typical migratory routes. Shell’s proposed program has been • Utilizing a two-barrier policy; and Any deflection of bowhead whales or estimated to be low. A total of 35 • Testing of all casing hangers to other marine mammal species due to the exploration wells have been drilled ensure that they have two independent, physical presence of the drilling units or between 1982 and 2003 in the Chukchi validated barriers at all times. support vessels would be extremely and Beaufort seas, and there have been NMFS has considered Shell’s small. Even if animals may deflect no blowouts. In addition, no blowouts proposed action and has concluded that because of the presence of the drilling have occurred from the approximately there is no reasonable likelihood of units, the Chukchi Sea’s migratory 98 exploration wells drilled within the serious injury or mortality of marine corridor is much larger in size than the Alaskan OCS (MMS, 2007a). Based on mammals from the proposed 2015 length of the drilling units, and animals modeling conducted by Bercha (2008), Chukchi Sea exploration drilling would have other means of passage the predicted frequency of an program. NMFS has consistently around the drilling units. In sum, the exploration well oil spill in waters interpreted the term ‘‘potential,’’ as used physical presence of the drilling units is similar to those in the Chukchi Sea, in 50 CFR 216.107(a), to only include not likely to cause a material deflection Alaska, is 0.000612 per well for a impacts that have more than a to migrating marine mammals. blowout sized between 10,000 barrels discountable probability of occurring, Moreover, any impacts would last only (bbl) to 149,000 bbl and 0.000354 per that is, impacts must be reasonably as long as the drilling units are actually well for a blowout greater than 150,000 expected to occur. Hence, NMFS has present. bbl. regularly issued IHAs in cases where it Seal species which may be Shell has implemented several design found that the potential for serious encountered during ice management standards and practices to reduce the injury or mortality was ‘‘highly activities include ringed seals, bearded already low probability of an oil spill unlikely’’ (See 73 FR 40512, 40514, July seals, spotted seals, and the much less occurring as part of its operations. The 15, 2008; 73 FR 45969, 45971, August 7, common ribbon seal. Ringed seals are wells proposed to be drilled in the 2008; 73 FR 46774, 46778, August 11, found in the activity area year-around. Arctic are exploratory and will not be 2008; 73 FR 66106, 66109, November 6, Bearded seals spend the winter season converted to production wells; thus, 2008; 74 FR 55368, 55371, October 27,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11745

2009; 77 FR 27322, May 9, 2012; and 77 benefit whales by displacing them from skin appear to be minor and of little FR 27284, May 9, 2012). the oil spill area. significance to the animal’s health Interpreting ‘‘potential’’ to include There is no direct evidence that oil (Geraci, 1990). Histological data and impacts with any probability of spills, including the much studied Santa ultrastructural studies by Geraci and St. occurring (i.e., speculative or extremely Barbara Channel and Exxon Valdez Aubin (1990) showed that exposures of low probability events) would nearly spills, have caused any deaths of skin to crude oil for up to 45 minutes preclude the issuance of IHAs in every cetaceans (Geraci, 1990; Brownell, 1971; in four species of toothed whales had no instance. For example, NMFS would be Harvey and Dahlheim, 1994). It is effect. They switched to gasoline and unable to issue an IHA whenever suspected that some individually applied the sponge up to 75 minutes. vessels were involved in the marine identified killer whales that disappeared This produced transient damage to activity since there is always some, from Prince William Sound during the epidermal cells in whales. Subtle albeit remote, possibility that a vessel time of the Exxon Valdez spill were changes were evident only at the cell could strike and seriously injure or kill casualties of that spill. However, no level. In each case, the skin damage a marine mammal. This would also be clear cause and effect relationship healed within a week. They concluded inconsistent with the dual-permitting between the spill and the disappearance that a cetacean’s skin is an effective scheme Congress created and could be established (Dahlheim and barrier to the noxious substances in undesirable from a policy perspective, Matkin, 1994). The AT–1 pod of petroleum. These substances normally as limited agency resources would be transient killer whales that sometimes damage skin by getting between cells used to issue regulations that provide no inhabits Prince William Sound has and dissolving protective lipids. In additional benefit to marine mammals continued to decline after the Exxon cetacean skin, however, tight beyond what is proposed in this IHA. Valdez Oil Spill. Matkin et al. (2008) intercellular bridges, vital surface cells, Despite concluding that the risk of tracked the AB resident pod and the and the extraordinary thickness of the AT–1 transient group of killer whales serious injury or mortality from an oil epidermis impeded the damage. The from 1984 to 2005. The results of their spill in this case is extremely remote, authors could not detect a change in photographic surveillance indicate a NMFS has nonetheless evaluated the lipid concentration between and within much higher than usual mortality rate potential effects of an oil spill on marine cells after exposing skin from a white- for both populations the year following mammals. While an oil spill is not a sided dolphin to gasoline for 16 hours the spill (33% for AB Pod and 41% for component of Shell’s specified activity, in vitro. AT–1 Group) and lower than average Bratton et al. (1993) synthesized potential impacts on marine mammals rates of increase in the 16 years after the studies on the potential effects of from an oil spill are discussed in more spill (annual increase of about 1.6% for contaminants on bowhead whales. They detail below and will be addressed in AB Pod compared to an annual increase concluded that no published data the Environmental Assessment. of about 3.2% for other Alaska killer proved oil fouling of the skin of any Potential Effects of Oil on Cetaceans whale pods). In killer whale pods, free-living whales, and conclude that mortality rates are usually higher for bowhead whales contacting fresh or The specific effects an oil spill would non-reproductive animals and very low weathered petroleum are unlikely to have on cetaceans are not well known. for reproductive animals and suffer harm. Although oil is unlikely to While mortality is unlikely, exposure to adolescents (Olesiuk et al., 1990, 2005; adhere to smooth skin, it may stick to spilled oil could lead to skin irritation, Matkin et al., 2005). No effects on rough areas on the surface (Henk and baleen fouling (which might reduce humpback whales in Prince William Mullan, 1997). Haldiman et al. (1985) feeding efficiency), respiratory distress Sound were evident after the Exxon found the epidermal layer to be as much from inhalation of hydrocarbon vapors, Valdez Oil Spill (von Ziegesar et al., as seven to eight times thicker than that consumption of some contaminated 1994). There was some temporary found on most whales. They also found prey items, and temporary displacement displacement of humpback whales out that little or no crude oil adhered to from contaminated feeding areas. Geraci of Prince William Sound, but this could preserved bowhead skin that was and St. Aubin (1990) summarize effects have been caused by oil contamination, dipped into oil up to three times, as of oil on marine mammals, and Bratton boat and aircraft disturbance, long as a water film stayed on the skin’s et al. (1993) provides a synthesis of displacement of food sources, or other surface. Oil adhered in small patches to knowledge of oil effects on bowhead causes. the surface and vibrissae (stiff, hairlike whales. The number of cetaceans that Migrating gray whales were structures), once it made enough contact might be contacted by a spill would apparently not greatly affected by the with the skin. The amount of oil depend on the size, timing, and Santa Barbara spill of 1969. There sticking to the surrounding skin and duration of the spill and where the oil appeared to be no relationship between epidermal depression appeared to be in is in relation to the animals. Whales the spill and mortality of marine proportion to the number of exposures may not avoid oil spills, and some have mammals. The higher than usual counts and the roughness of the skin’s surface. been observed feeding within oil slicks of dead marine mammals recorded after It can be assumed that if oil contacted (Goodale et al., 1981). These topics are the spill likely represented increased the eyes, effects would be similar to discussed in more detail next. survey effort and therefore cannot be those observed in ringed seals; In the case of an oil spill occurring conclusively linked to the spill itself continued exposure of the eyes to oil during migration periods, disturbance of (Brownell, 1971; Geraci, 1990). The could cause permanent damage (St. the migrating cetaceans from cleanup conclusion was that whales were either Aubin, 1990). activities may have more of an impact able to detect the oil and avoid it or (2) Ingestion than the oil itself. Human activity were unaffected by it (Geraci, 1990). associated with cleanup efforts could Whales could ingest oil if their food deflect whales away from the path of the (1) Oiling of External Surfaces is contaminated, or oil could also be oil. However, noise created from Whales rely on a layer of blubber for absorbed through the respiratory tract. cleanup activities likely will be short insulation, so oil would have little if Some of the ingested oil is voided in term and localized. Moreover, whale any effect on thermoregulation by vomit or feces but some is absorbed and avoidance of clean-up activities may whales. Effects of oiling on cetacean could cause toxic effects (Geraci, 1990).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11746 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

When returned to clean water, Spill, there were numerous observations April or May, although some whales contaminated animals can depurate this of gray whales, harbor porpoises, Dall’s may pass Point Barrow as early as late internal oil (Engelhardt, 1978, 1982). Oil porpoises, and killer whales swimming March and as late as July (Braham et al., ingestion can decrease food assimilation through light-to-heavy crude-oil sheens 1984; Ljungblad et al., 1984; Richardson of prey eaten (St. Aubin, 1988). (Harvey and Dalheim, 1994, cited in et al., 1995a). Therefore, a spill in Cetaceans may swallow some oil- Matkin et al., 2008). However, if some summer would not be expected to have contaminated prey, but it likely would of the animals avoid the area because of major impacts on these species. be only a small part of their food. It is the oil, then the effects of the oiling Additionally, humpback and fin whales not known if whales would leave a would be less severe on those are only sighted in the Chukchi Sea in feeding area where prey was abundant individuals. small numbers in the summer, as this is following a spill. Some zooplankton thought to be the extreme northern edge (5) Factors Affecting the Severity of eaten by bowheads and gray whales of their range. Therefore, impacts to Effects consume oil particles and these species from an oil spill would be bioaccumulation can result. Tissue Effects of oil on cetaceans in open extremely limited. studies by Geraci and St. Aubin (1990) water are likely to be minimal, but there Potential Effects of Oil on Pinnipeds revealed low levels of naphthalene in could be effects on cetaceans where the livers and blubber of baleen whales. both the oil and the whales are at least Ice seals are present in open-water This result suggests that prey have low partly confined in leads or at ice edges areas during summer and early autumn. concentrations in their tissues, or that (Geraci, 1990). In spring, bowhead and Externally oiled phocid seals often baleen whales may be able to metabolize beluga whales migrate through leads in survive and become clean, but heavily and excrete certain petroleum the ice. At this time, the migration can oiled seal pups and adults may die, hydrocarbons. Whales exposed to an oil be concentrated in narrow corridors depending on the extent of oiling and spill are unlikely to ingest enough oil to defined by the leads, thereby creating a characteristics of the oil. Prolonged cause serious internal damage (Geraci greater risk to animals caught in the exposure could occur if fuel or crude oil and St. Aubin, 1980, 1982) and this kind spring lead system should oil enter the was spilled in or reached nearshore of damage has not been reported leads. This situation would only occur waters, was spilled in a lead used by (Geraci, 1990). if there were an oil spill late in the seals, or was spilled under the ice when season and Shell could not complete seals have limited mobility (NMFS, (3) Fouling of Baleen cleanup efforts prior to ice covering the 2000). Adult seals may suffer some Baleen itself is not damaged by area. The oil would likely then be temporary adverse effects, such as eye exposure to oil and is resistant to effects trapped in the ice until it began to thaw and skin irritation, with possible of oil (St. Aubin et al., 1984). Crude oil in the spring. infection (MMS, 1996). Such effects may could coat the baleen and reduce In fall, the migration route of increase stress, which could contribute filtration efficiency; however, effects bowheads can be close to shore to the death of some individuals. Ringed may be temporary (Braithwaite, 1983; (Blackwell et al., 2009c). If fall migrants seals may ingest oil-contaminated foods, St. Aubin et al., 1984). If baleen is were moving through leads in the pack but there is little evidence that oiled coated in oil for long periods, it could ice or were concentrated in nearshore seals will ingest enough oil to cause cause the animal to be unable to feed, waters, some bowhead whales might not lethal internal effects. There is a which could lead to malnutrition or be able to avoid oil slicks and could be likelihood that newborn seal pups, if even death. Most of the oil that would subject to prolonged contamination. contacted by oil, would die from oiling coat the baleen is removed after 30 min, However, the autumn migration through through loss of insulation and resulting and less than 5% would remain after 24 the Chukchi Sea extends over several hypothermia. These potential effects are hr (Bratton et al., 1993). Effects of oiling weeks, and some of the whales travel addressed in more detail in subsequent of the baleen on feeding efficiency along routes north or inland of the area, paragraphs. appear to be minor (Geraci, 1990). thereby reducing the number of whales Reports of the effects of oil spills have However, a study conducted by that could approach patches of spilled shown that some mortality of seals may Lambertsen et al. (2005) concluded that oil. Additionally, vessel activity have occurred as a result of oil fouling; their results highlight the uncertainty associated with spill cleanup efforts however, large scale mortality had not about how rapidly oil would depurate at may deflect whales traveling near the been observed prior to the Exxon Valdez the near zero temperatures in arctic Burger prospect in the Chukchi Sea, Oil Spill (St. Aubin, 1990). Effects of oil waters and whether baleen function thereby reducing the likelihood of on marine mammals were not well would be restored after oiling. contact with spilled oil. studied at most spills because of lack of Bowhead and beluga whales baseline data and/or the brevity of the (4) Avoidance overwinter in the Bering Sea (mainly post-spill surveys. The largest Some cetaceans can detect oil and from November to March). In the documented impact of a spill, prior to sometimes avoid it, but others enter and summer, the majority of the bowhead Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Exxon Valdez swim through slicks without apparent whales are found in the Canadian Oil Spill, was on young seals in January effects (Geraci, 1990; Harvey and Beaufort Sea, although some have in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (St. Aubin, Dahlheim, 1994). Bottlenose dolphins in recently been observed in the U.S. 1990). Brownell and Le Boeuf (1971) the Gulf of Mexico apparently could Beaufort and Chukchi Seas during the found no marked effects of oil from the detect and avoid slicks and mousse but summer months (June to August). Data Santa Barbara oil spill on California sea did not avoid light sheens on the surface from the Barrow-based boat surveys in lions or on the mortality rates of (Smultea and Wursig, 1995). After the 2009 (George and Sheffield, 2009) newborn pups. Regal Sword spill in 1979, various showed that bowheads were observed Intensive and long-term studies were species of baleen and toothed whales almost continuously in the waters near conducted after the Exxon Valdez Oil were observed swimming and feeding in Barrow, including feeding groups in the Spill in Alaska. There may have been a areas containing spilled oil southeast of Chukchi Sea at the beginning of July. long-term decline of 36% in numbers of Cape Cod, MA (Goodale et al., 1981). The majority of belugas in the Beaufort molting harbor seals at oiled haul-out For months following Exxon Valdez Oil stock migrate into the Beaufort Sea in sites in Prince William Sound following

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11747

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Exxon Valdez oiled mothers. There is the potential and mitigation measures described later Oil Spill (Frost et al., 1994a). However, that newborn ringed seal pups that were in this document (see the ‘‘Proposed in a reanalysis of those data and contaminated with oil could die from Mitigation’’ and ‘‘Proposed Monitoring additional years of surveys, along with hypothermia. and Reporting’’ sections). an examination of assumptions and (2) Ingestion Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal biases associated with the original data, Habitat Hoover-Miller et al. (2001) concluded Marine mammals can ingest oil if that the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill effect their food is contaminated. Oil can also The primary potential impacts to had been overestimated. The decline in be absorbed through the respiratory tract marine mammals and other marine attendance at some oiled sites was more (Geraci and Smith, 1976; Engelhardt et species are associated with elevated likely a continuation of the general al., 1977). Some of the ingested oil is sound levels produced by the decline in harbor seal abundance in voided in vomit or feces but some is exploratory drilling program (i.e. the Prince William Sound documented absorbed and could cause toxic effects drilling units and the airguns). since 1984 (Frost et al., 1999) rather (Engelhardt, 1981). When returned to However, other potential impacts are than a result of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. clean water, contaminated animals can also possible to the surrounding habitat The results from Hoover-Miller et al. depurate this internal oil (Engelhardt, from physical disturbance and an oil (2001) indicate that the effects of Exxon 1978, 1982, 1985). In addition, seals spill (should one occur). This section Valdez Oil Spill were largely exposed to an oil spill are unlikely to describes the potential impacts to indistinguishable from natural decline ingest enough oil to cause serious marine mammal habitat from the by 1992. However, while Frost et al. internal damage (Geraci and St. Aubin, specified activity. Because the marine (2004) concluded that there was no 1980, 1982). mammals in the area feed on fish and/ or invertebrates there is also information evidence that seals were displaced from (3) Avoidance and Behavioral Effects oiled sites, they did find that aerial on the species typically preyed upon by counts indicated 26% fewer pups were Although seals may have the the marine mammals in the area. capability to detect and avoid oil, they produced at oiled locations in 1989 than Potential Impacts on Habitat From would have been expected without the apparently do so only to a limited extent (St. Aubin, 1990). Seals may abandon Seafloor Disturbance (Mooring and MLC oil spill. Harbor seal pup mortality at Construction) oiled beaches was 23% to 26%, which the area of an oil spill because of human may have been higher than natural disturbance associated with cleanup Mooring of the drilling units and mortality, although no baseline data for efforts, but they are most likely to construction of MLCs will result in pup mortality existed prior to Exxon remain in the area of the spill. One some seafloor disturbance and Valdez Oil Spill (Frost et al., 1994a). notable behavioral reaction to oiling is temporary increases in water column There was no conclusive evidence of that oiled seals are reluctant to enter the turbidity. spill effects on Steller sea lions (Calkins water, even when intense cleanup The drilling units would be held in et al., 1994). Oil did not persist on sea activities are conducted nearby (St. place during operations with systems of lions themselves (as it did on harbor Aubin, 1990; Frost et al., 1994b, 2004). eight anchors for each unit. The seals), nor did it persist on sea lion embedment type anchors are designed (4) Factors Affecting the Severity of to embed into the seafloor thereby haul-out sites and rookeries (Calkins et Effects al., 1994). Sea lion rookeries and haul providing the required resistance. The out sites, unlike those used by harbor Seals that are under natural stress, anchors will penetrate the seafloor on seals, have steep sides and are subject such as lack of food or a heavy contact and may drag 2–3 or more times to high wave energy (Calkins et al., infestation by parasites, could their length while being set. Both the 1994). potentially die because of the additional anchor and anchor chain will disturb stress of oiling (Geraci and Smith, 1976; sediments in this process creating a (1) Oiling of External Surfaces St. Aubin, 1990; Spraker et al., 1994). trench or depression with surrounding Adult seals rely on a layer of blubber Female seals that are nursing young berms where the displaced sediment is for insulation, and oiling of the external would be under natural stress, as would mounded. Some sediments will be surface does not appear to have adverse molting seals. In both cases, the seals suspended in the water column during thermoregulatory effects (Kooyman et would have reduced food stores and the setting and subsequent removal of al., 1976, 1977; St. Aubin, 1990). may be less resistant to effects of oil the anchors. The depression with Contact with oil on the external surfaces than seals that are not under some type associated berm, collectively known as can potentially cause increased stress of natural stress. Seals that are not an anchor scar, remains when the and irritation of the eyes of ringed seals under natural stress (e.g., fasting, anchor is removed. (Geraci and Smith, 1976; St. Aubin, molting) would be more likely to Dimensions of future anchor scars can 1990). These effects seemed to be survive oiling. In general, seals do not be estimated based on the dimensions of temporary and reversible, but continued exhibit large behavioral or physiological the anchor. Shell estimates that each exposure of eyes to oil could cause reactions to limited surface oiling or anchor may impact a seafloor area of up permanent damage (St. Aubin, 1990). incidental exposure to contaminated to about 2,510 ft2 (233m2). Impact Corneal ulcers and abrasions, food or vapors (St. Aubin, 1990; estimates associated with mooring a conjunctivitis, and swollen nictitating Williams et al., 1994). Effects could be drilling unit by its eight anchors is membranes were observed in captive severe if seals surface in heavy oil slicks 20,078 ft2 (1,865 m2) of seafloor ringed seals placed in crude oil-covered in leads or if oil accumulates near haul- assuming that the 15 metric ton anchors water (Geraci and Smith, 1976) and in out sites (St. Aubin, 1990). An oil spill are used and set only once. Shell plans seals in the Antarctic after an oil spill in open-water is less likely to impact to pre-set anchors and deploy mooring (Lillie, 1954). seals. lines at each drill site prior to arrival of Newborn seal pups rely on their fur The potential effects to marine the drilling units. Unless moved by an for insulation. Newborn ringed seal mammals described in this section of outside force such as sea current, pups in lairs on the ice could be the document do not take into anchors should only need to be set once contaminated through contact with consideration the proposed monitoring per drill site.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11748 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

Once the drilling units end operation, zooplankton, and will therefore have no investigators and reviewers (Gausland the Polar Pioneer anchors will be direct effect on marine mammals. 2003, Thomson and Davis 2001, Dalen retrieved and the Discoverer anchors Sound energy generated by the airgun et al. 1996) have concluded that even may be left on site for wet storage. Over arrays to be used for the ZVSPs will seismic surveys with much larger airgun time the anchor scars will be filled have no more than negligible effects on arrays than are used for shallow hazards through natural movement of sediment. zooplankton. Studies on euphausiids and site clearance surveys, have no The duration of the scars depends upon and copepods, which are some of the impact to fish eggs and larvae the energy of the system, water depth, more abundant and biologically discernible at the population or fisheries ice scour, and sediment type. Anchor important groups of zooplankton in the level. scars were visible under low energy Chukchi Sea, have documented the use These studies indicate that some conditions in the North Sea for five to of hearing receptors to maintain zooplankton within a distance of about ten years after retrieval. Scars typically schooling structures (Wiese 1996) and 16 ft. (5.0 m) or less from the airgun do not form or persist in sandy mud or detection of predators (Hartline et al. array may sustain sublethal or lethal sand sediments but may last for nine 1996, Wong 1996) respectively, and injuries but there would be no years in hard clays (Centaur Associates, therefore have some sensitivity to population effects even over small areas. Inc 1984). Surficial sediments in Shell’s sound; however any effects of airguns Therefore there would be no indirect Burger Prospect consist of soft sandy on zooplankton would be expected to be effect on marine mammals. mud (silt and clay) with lesser amounts restricted to the area within a few feet Ice management is likely to be the of gravel (Battelle Memorial Institute or meters of the airgun array and would most intense sources of sound 2010; Blanchard et al. 2010a, b). The likely be sublethal. Studies on brown associated with the exploration drilling energy regime, plus possible effects of shrimp in the Wadden Sea (Webb and program Richardson et al. (1995a). Ice ice gouge in the Chukchi Sea suggests Kempf 1998) revealed no particular management vessels, during active ice that anchor scars would be refilled sensitivity to sounds generated by management, may have to adjust course faster than in the North Sea. airguns at sound levels of 190 dB re 1 forward and astern while moving ice mPa rms at 3.3 ft. (1.0 m) in water depths and thereby create greater variability in Excavation of each MLC by the of 6.6 ft. (2.0 m). Koshleva (1992) propeller cavitation than other vessels drilling units using a large diameter reported no detectable effects on the that maintain course with less drill bit will displace about 589m3 of amphipod (Gammarus locusta) at adjustment. The drilling units maintain seafloor sediments and directly disturb distances as close as 0.5 m from an station during drilling without approximately 1,075 ft2 (100 m2) of airgun with a source level of 223 dB re activation of propulsion propellers. seafloor. Pressurized air and seawater 1 mPa rms. A recent Canadian Richardson (et al.1995a) reported that (no drilling mud used) will be used to government review of the impacts of the noise generated by an icebreaker assist in the removal of the excavated seismic sound on invertebrates and pushing ice was 10–15 dB re 1 mPa rms materials from the MLC. Some of the other organisms (CDFO 2004) included greater than the noise produced by the excavated sediments will be displaced similar findings; this review noted ship underway in open water. It is to adjacent seafloor areas and some will ‘‘there are no documented cases of expected that the lower level of sound be pumped and discharged on the invertebrate mortality upon exposure to produced by the drilling units, ice seafloor away from the MLC. These seismic sound under field operating management, or other vessels would excavated materials will also have some conditions’’ (CDFO 2004). Some have less impact on zooplankton than indirect effects as they are suspended in sublethal effects (e.g., reduced growth, would 3D seismic (survey) sound. the water and deposited on the seafloor behavioral changes) were noted (CDFO No appreciable adverse impact on in the vicinity of the MLCs. Direct and 2004). zooplankton populations will occur due indirect effects would include slight The energy from airguns has in part to large reproductive capacities changes in seafloor relief and sediment sometimes been shown to damage eggs and naturally high levels of predation consistency, and smothering of benthic and fry of some fish. Eggs and larvae of and mortality of these populations. Any organisms. some fish may apparently sustain mortality or impacts on zooplankton as Potential Impacts on Habitat From sublethal to lethal effects if they are a result of Shell’s operations is Sound Generation within very close proximity to the immaterial as compared to the naturally seismic-energy-discharge point. These occurring reproductive and mortality Underwater noise generated from types of effects have been demonstrated rates of these species. This is consistent Shell’s proposed exploration drilling by some laboratory experiments using with previous conclusions that activity may potentially affect marine single airguns (e.g., Kosheleva 1992, crustaceans (such as zooplankton) are mammal prey species, which are fish Matishov 1992, Holliday et al. 1987), not particularly sensitive to sound species and various invertebrates in the while other similar studies have found produced by seismic sounds (Wiese action area. no material increases in mortality or 1996). Impact from sound energy (1) Zooplankton morbidity due to airgun exposure (Dalen generated by an ice breaker, other and Knutsen 1986, Kostyuvchenko marine vessels, and drill ships would Zooplankton are food sources for 1973). The effects, where they do occur, have less impact, as these activities several endangered species, including are apparently limited to the area within produce lower sound energy levels bowhead, fin, and humpback whales. 3–6 ft. (1–2 m) from the airgun- (Burns 1993). Historical sound The primary generators of sound energy discharge ports. In their detailed review propagation studies performed on the associated with the exploration drilling of studies on the effects of airguns on Kulluk by Hall et al. (1994) also indicate program are the airgun array during the fish and fisheries, Dalen et al. (1996) the Kulluk and similar drilling units conduct of ZVSPs, the drilling units concluded that airguns can have would have lower sound energy output during drilling, and marine vessels, deleterious effects on fish eggs and than three-dimensional seismic sound particularly during ice management and larvae out to a distance of 16 ft (5.0 m), sources (Burns et al. 1993). The drilling DP. Sound energy generated by these but that the most frequent and serious units Discoverer and Polar Pioneer activities will not negatively impact the injuries are restricted to the area within would emit sounds at a lower level than diversity and abundance of 5.0 ft (1.5 m) of the airguns. Most the Kulluk and therefore the impacts

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11749

due to drilling noise would be even (3) Fish intensity rises rapidly compared to lower than the Kulluk. Therefore, Fish react to sound and use sound to sound rising more slowly to the same zooplankton organisms would not likely communicate (Tavolga et al. 1981). level (Blaxter et al. 1981). Any such be affected by sound energy levels by Experiments have shown that fish can effects on fish would be negligible and the vessels to be used during Shell’s sense both the intensity and direction of have no indirect effect on marine exploration drilling activities in the sound (Hawkins 1981). Whether or not mammals. Chukchi Sea. fish can hear a particular sound Potential Impacts on Habitat From (2) Benthos depends upon its frequency and Drilling Wastes There was no indication from post- intensity. Wavelength and the natural Discharges of drilling wastes must be drilling benthic biomass or density background sound also play a role. The authorized by the NPDES exploration studies that previous drilling activities intensity of sound in water decreases facilities GP, and this GP places at the Hammerhead Prospect have had with distance as a result of geometrical numerous conditions and limitations on a measurable impact on the ecology of spreading and absorption. Therefore, the such discharges. The EPA (2012) has the immediate local area. To the distance between the sound source and determined that with these limits and contrary, the abundance of benthic the fish is important. Physical conditions in place, the discharges will communities in the Sivulliq area would conditions in the sea, such as not result in any unreasonable suggest that the benthos were actually temperature thermoclines and seabed degradation of ocean waters. The thriving there (Dunton et al. 2008). topography, can influence transmission primary impacts of the discharges are Sound energy generated by loss and thus the distance at which a increases in TSS in the water column exploration drilling and ice sound can be heard. and the deposition of drilling wastes on management activities will not The impact of sound energy from the seafloor. These impacts would be appreciably affect diversity and exploration drilling and ice localized to the drill sites and abundance of plants or animals on the management activities will be negligible temporary. seafloor. The primary generators of and temporary. Fish typically move sound energy are the drilling units and away from sound energy above a level (1) Zooplankton marine vessels. Ice management vessels that is at 120 dB re 1 mPa rms or higher Reviews by EPA (2006) and Neff are likely to be the loudest sources of (Ona 1988). (2005) indicate that though planktonic sounds associated with the exploration Drilling unit sound source levels organisms are sensitive to drilling program (Richardson et al. during drilling can range from 90 dB re environmental conditions (e.g., 1995a). Ice management vessels, during 1 mPa rms within 31 mi (50 km) of the temperature, light, availability of active ice management, may have to drilling unit to 138 dB re 1 mPa rms nutrients, and water quality), there is adjust course forward and astern while within a distance of 0.06 mi (0.01 km) little or no evidence of effects from moving ice and thereby create greater from the drilling unit (Greene 1985, drilling waste discharges on plankton in variability in propeller cavitation than 1987b). These are predicted sound the ocean. In the laboratory, high other vessels that maintain course with levels at various distances based on concentrations of drilling wastes have less adjustment. The drilling units modeled transmission loss equations in been shown to have lethal or sublethal maintain station during drilling without the literature (Greene 1987b). Ice effects on zooplankton due to toxicity activation of propulsion propellers. management vessel sound source levels and abrasion by suspended sediments. Richardson et al. (1995a) reported that can range from 174–184 dB re 1 mPa These effects are minimized at the drill the noise generated by an icebreaker rms. At these intensity levels, fish may site by limits and conditions placed on pushing ice was 10–15 dB re 1 mPa rms avoid the drilling unit, ice management the discharges by the NPDES greater than the noise produced by the vessels, or other large support vessels. exploration facilities GP, which include ship underway in open water. The This avoidance behavior is temporary discharge rate limits and toxicity limits. lower level of sound produced by the and limited to periods when a vessel is Any impact by drilling waste drilling units, ice management vessels, underway or drilling. There have been discharges on zooplankton would be or other vessels will have less impact on no studies of the direct effects of ice localized and temporary. Fine-grained bottom-dwelling organisms than would management vessel sounds on fish. particulates and other solids in drilling 3D seismic (survey) sound. However, it is known that the ice wastes could cause sublethal effects to No appreciable adverse impacts on management vessels produce sounds organisms in the water column. benthic populations would be expected generally 10–15 dB re 1 mPa rms higher Responses observed in the laboratory due in part to large reproductive when moving through ice rather than following exposure to drilling mud capacities and naturally high levels of open water (Richardson et al. 1995b). In include alteration of respiration and predation and mortality of these general, fish show greater reactions to a filtration rates and altered behavior. populations. Any mortalities or impacts spike in sound energy levels, or impulse Zooplankton in the immediate area of that might occur as a result of Shell’s sounds, rather than a continuous high discharge from drilling operations could operations is immaterial compared to intensity signal (Blaxter et al. 1981). potentially be adversely impacted by the naturally occurring high Fish sensitivity to impulse sound sediments in the water column, which reproductive and mortality rates. This is such as that generated by ZVSPs varies could clog respiratory and feeding consistent with previous BOEM depending on the species of fish. Cod, structures, cause abrasions to gills and conclusions that the effect of seismic herring and other species of fish with other sensitive tissues, or alter behavior exploration on benthic organisms swim bladders have been found to be or development. However, the probably would be immeasurable relatively sensitive to sound, while planktonic organisms are not likely to (USDI/MMS 2007). Impacts from sound mackerel, flatfish, and many other have long-term exposures to the drilling energy generated by ice breakers, other species that lack swim bladders have waste because of the episodic nature of marine vessels, and drilling units would been found to have poor hearing discharges (typically only a few hours in have less impact, as these activities (Hawkins 1981, Hastings and Popper duration), the small area affected, and produce much lower sound energy 2005). An alarm response in these fish the movement of the organisms with the levels (Burns et al. 1993). is elicited when the sound signal ocean currents. The discharged waste

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11750 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

must have low toxicities to meet permit surface and subsurface sediment (639 m/g and 595 m/g). Concentrations of requirements and modeling studies samples. Considering the relatively copper, mercury, and lead, were indicate dilution factors of >1,000 small area that drilling waste discharges elevated in a few samples from the within 328 ft (100 m). Modeling and will be deposited, no material impacts historic drill sites where barium was monitoring studies have demonstrated on sediment are expected to occur. The also elevated. All observed that increased TSS in the water column expected increased concentrations of concentrations of hydrocarbons or from the discharges would largely be Zn, Cd, and Cr in sediments near the metals in the sediment samples from the limited to the area within 984 ft (300 m) drill site due to the discharge are in the historic drill sites were below levels from the discharge. This impact would range where no or low effects would (below ERL or Effects Range Low of likely not have more than a short-term result. Long 1995) believed to have adverse impact on zooplankton and no effect on Studies in the 1980s, 1999, 2000, and ecological effects (Neff et al. 2010). zooplankton populations, and therefore 2002 (Brown et al. 2001 in USDI/MMS Similar results were reported by Trefry no indirect effects on marine mammals. 2003) also found that benthic organism and Trocine (2009) for the historic near drill sites in the Beaufort Sea have Hammerhead drill sites in the Beaufort (2) Benthos accumulated neither petroleum Sea. Benthic organisms would primarily be hydrocarbon nor heavy metals. In 2008 These data show that the potential affected by the discharges through the Shell investigated the benthic accumulation of heavy metals in deposition of the discharged drilling communities (Dunton et al. 2008) and discharged drilling waste on the waste on the seafloor resulting in the sediments (Trefry and Trocine 2009) Chukchi seafloor associated with smothering of organisms, changes in the around the Sivulliq Prospect including drilling exploration wells is very limited consistency of sediments on the the location of the historical and does not pose a threat. Impacts to seafloor, and possible elevation in heavy Hammerhead drill site that was drilled seafloor sediments from the discharge of metal concentrations in the in 1985. Benthic communities at the drilling wastes will be minor, as they accumulations. historical Hammerhead drill site were would be restricted to a very small Drilling waste discharges are found not to differ statistically in portion of the activity area and will not regulated by the EPA’s NPDES abundance, community structure, or result in contamination. exploration facilities GP. The impact of diversity, from benthic communities The drilling waste discharges will be drilling waste discharges would be elsewhere in this portion of the Beaufort conducted as authorized by the EPA’s localized and temporary. Effects on Sea, indicating that there was no long NPDES exploration facilities GP, which benthic organisms present within a few term effect. limits the metal content and flow rate meters of the discharge point would be Sediment samples taken in the for such discharges. The EPA (2012b) expected, primarily due to Chukchi Sea Environmental Studies analyzed the effects of these types of sedimentation. However, benthic Program Burger Study Area were discharges, including potential transport animals are not likely to have long-term analyzed for metal and hydrocarbon of pollutants such as metals by exposures to drilling wastes because of concentrations (Neff et al. 2010). biological, physical, or chemical the episodic nature of discharges Concentrations of all measured processes, and has concluded that these (typically only a few hours in duration). hydrocarbon types were found to be types of discharges do not result in Shell conducted dispersion modeling well within the range of non-toxic unreasonable degradation of ocean of the drilling waste discharges using background concentrations reported by waters. The physical effects of mooring the Offshore Operators Committee Mud other Alaskan and Arctic coastal and and MLC construction would be and Produced Water Discharge (OOC) shelf sediment studies (Neff et al. 2010, restricted to a very small portion of the model (Fluid Dynamix 2014a, b). The Dunton et al. 2012). Metal Chukchi Sea seafloor (15.7–33.2 ac in modeling effort provided predictions of concentrations were found to be quite total for the exploration program) which the area and thickness of accumulations variable. Average concentrations of all represents less than 0.000011%– of discharged drilling waste on the metals except for arsenic and barium 0.000024% of the seafloor of the seafloor. The USA EPA has performed were found to be lower than those Chukchi Sea. However, the predicted an evaluation of drilling waste in reported for average marine sediment. small increases in concentrations of support of the issuance of NPDES GP Trefry et al. (2012) confirmed findings metals will likely be evident for a AKG–28–8100 for exploration facilities by Neff et al. 2010 that concentrations number of years until gouged by ice, (EPA, 2012b) (October 2012), and of all measured hydrocarbon types were redistributed by currents, or buried determined these accumulations will well within the range of non-toxic under natural sedimentation. not result in any unreasonable background concentrations reported by There is relatively little information degradation of the marine environment. other Alaskan and Arctic coastal and on the effects of various deposition Heavy metal contamination of shelf sediment studies. depths on arctic biota (Hurley and Ellis sediments and resulting effects on Neff et al. (2010) assessed the 2004); most such studies have benthic organisms is not expected. The concentrations of metals and various investigated the effects of deposition of NPDES exploration facilities GP hydrocarbons in sediments at the dredged materials (Wilbur 1992). Burial contains stringent limitations on the historic Burger and Klondike wells in depths as low as 1.0 in (2.54 cm) have concentrations of mercury, cadmium, the Chukchi Sea, which were drilled in been found to be lethal for some benthic chromium, silver, and thallium allowed 1989–1990. Surface and subsurface organisms (Wilbur 1992, EPA 2006). in discharged drilling waste. Additional sediments collected in 2008 at the Accumulations of drilling waste to limitations are placed on free oil, diesel historic drill sites contained higher depths > 1.0 in (>2.54 cm) will be oil, and total aromatic hydrocarbons concentrations of all types of analyzed restricted to very small areas of the allowed in discharged drilling waste. hydrocarbon in comparison to the seafloor around each drill site and in Discharge rates are also controlled by surrounding area. The same pattern was total represent an extremely small the permit. Baseline studies at the 1985 found for the metal barium, with portion of the Chukchi Sea. These areas Hammerhead drill site (Trefry and concentrations 2–3 times greater at the would be re-colonized by benthic Trocine 2009) detected background historic drill sites (mean = 1,410 m/g and organisms rather quickly. Impacts to levels Al, Fe, Zn, Cd and Hg in all 1,300 m/g) than in the surrounding areas benthic organisms are therefore

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11751

considered to be negligible with no drilling season. The majority of the ice zooplankton) and marine fishes from an indirect effects on marine mammals. As management or icebreaking should oil spill in the proposed drilling area required by the NPDES exploration occur in the early and latter portions of would not be likely to have long-term or facilities GP, Shell will implement an the drilling season. Landfast ice would significant consequences to marine environmental monitoring program not be present during Shell’s proposed mammal prey. Impacts would be greater (EMP), to assess the recovery of the operations. if the oil moves closer to shore, as many benthos from impacts drilling waste The ringed seal is the most common of the marine mammals in the area have discharges. pinniped species in the Chukchi Sea been seen feeding at nearshore sites activity area. While ringed seals use ice (3) Fish (such as bowhead whales). Gray whales year-round, they do not construct lairs do feed in more offshore locations in the Drilling waste discharges are for pupping until late winter/early Chukchi Sea; therefore, impacts to their regulated by the NPDES exploration spring on the landfast ice. Shell plans to prey from oil could have some impacts. facilities GP. The impact of drilling conclude drilling on or before 31 Due to their wide distribution, large waste discharges would be localized October, therefore Shell’s activities numbers, and rapid rate of regeneration, and temporary. Drilling waste would not impact ringed seal lairs or the recovery of marine invertebrate discharges could displace fish a short habitat needed for breeding and populations is expected to occur soon distance from a drill site. Effects on fish pupping in the Chukchi Sea. Ringed after the surface oil passes. Spill and fish larvae present within a few seals can be found on the pack ice response activities are not likely to meters of the discharge point would be surface in the late spring and early disturb the prey items of whales or seals expected, primarily due to summer in the Chukchi Sea, the latter sufficiently to cause more than minor sedimentation. However, fish and fish part of which may overlap with the start effects. Spill response activities could larvae that live in the water column are of Shell’s planned exploration drilling cause marine mammals to avoid the not likely to have long-term exposures activities. Management of pack ice that disturbed habitat that is being cleaned. to drilling wastes because of the contains hauled out seals may result in However, by causing avoidance, animals episodic nature of the discharges the animals becoming startled and would avoid impacts from the oil itself. (typically only a few hours in duration). entering the water, but such effects Although unlikely at deeper offshore Additionally, the likelihood of an oil would be brief. spill is expected to be very low, as drilling locations, demersal fish eggs Ice management or icebreaking would discussed earlier in this document. could be smothered if discharges occur occur during a time when ringed seal in a spawning area during the period of life functions such as breeding, Proposed Mitigation egg production. No specific demersal pupping, and molting do not occur in In order to issue an incidental take fish spawning locations have been the proposed project area. Additionally, authorization (ITA) under Sections identified at the Burger drill site these life functions occur more 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA, locations. The most abundant and commonly on landfast ice, which will NMFS must, where applicable, set forth trophically important marine fish, the not be impacted by Shell’s activity. Arctic cod, spawns with planktonic eggs Bearded seals breed in the Bering and the permissible methods of taking and larvae under the sea ice during Chukchi Seas, but would not be pursuant to such activity, and other winter and will therefore have little plentiful in the area of the Chukchi Sea means of effecting the least practicable exposure to discharges. exploration drilling program. Spotted impact on such species or stock and its Habitat alteration concerns apply to seals are even less common in the habitat, paying particular attention to special or relatively uncommon Chukchi Sea activity area. Ice is used by rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of habitats, such as those important for bearded and spotted seals for critical life similar significance, and on the spawning, nursery, or overwintering. functions such as breeding and molting, availability of such species or stock for Important fish overwintering habitats but it is unlikely these life functions taking for certain subsistence uses are located in coastal rivers and would occur in the proposed project (where relevant). This section nearshore coastal waters, but are not area, during the time in which drilling summarizes the contents of Shell’s found in the proposed exploration activities will take place. The Marine Mammal Monitoring and drilling areas. Important spawning areas availability of ice would not be Mitigation Plan (4MP). Later in this have not been identified in the Chukchi impacted as a result of Shell’s document in the ‘‘Proposed Incidental Sea. Impacts on fish will be negligible, exploration drilling program. Harassment Authorization’’ section, with no indirect effects on marine Ice-management or icebreaking NMFS lays out the proposed conditions mammals. related to Shell’s planned exploration for review, as they would appear in the drilling program in the Chukchi Sea is final IHA (if issued). Potential Impacts on Habitat From Ice not expected to have any habitat-related Shell submitted a 4MP as part of its Management/Icebreaking Activities effects that could cause material or long- application (see ADDRESSES). Shell’s Ice management or icebreaking term consequences for individual planned offshore drilling program activities include the physical pushing marine mammals or on the food sources incorporates both design features and or moving of ice in the proposed that they utilize. operational procedures for minimizing exploration drilling area and to prevent potential impacts on marine mammals ice floes from striking the drilling unit. Potential Impacts From an Oil Spill and on subsistence hunts. The 4MP is Ringed, bearded, spotted, and ribbon Lower trophic organisms and fish a combination of active monitoring in seals) are dependent on sea ice for at species are primary food sources for the area of operations and the least part of their life history. Sea ice is Arctic marine mammals. However, as implementation of mitigation measures important for life functions such as noted earlier in this document, the designed to minimize project impacts to resting, breeding, and molting. These offshore areas of the Chukchi Sea are marine resources. Monitoring will species are dependent on two different not primary feeding grounds for many of provide information on marine types of ice: Pack ice and landfast ice. the marine mammals that may pass mammals potentially affected by Shell does not expect to have to manage through the area. Therefore, impacts to exploration activities, in addition to pack ice during the majority of the lower trophic organisms (such as facilitating real time mitigation to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11752 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

prevent injury of marine mammals by Agreements between Shell and other (A) Exploration Drilling Activities industrial sounds or activities. agencies will also be fully incorporated. The areas exposed to sounds PSOs will be provided training through Vessel Based Marine Mammal produced by the drilling units a program approved by the NMFS. Monitoring for Mitigation Discoverer and Polar Pioneer were determined by measurements from The objectives of the vessel based Mitigation Measures During the drilling in 2012 or were modeled by marine mammal monitoring are to Exploration Drilling Program JASCO Applied Sciences. The 2012 ensure that disturbance to marine Shell’s planned exploration drilling measurement of the distance to the 120 mammals and subsistence hunts is activities incorporate design features dB (rms) threshold for normal drilling minimized, that effects on marine and operational procedures aimed at activity by the Discoverer was 0.93 mi mammals are documented, and that data minimizing potential impacts on marine (1.5 km) while the distance of the ≥120 is collected on the occurrence and mammals and subsistence hunts. Some dB (rms) radius during MLC distribution of marine mammals in the of the mitigation design features construction was 5.1 mi (8.2 km). project area. include: The marine mammal monitoring will • Measured sound levels for the Polar Conducting pre-season acoustic Pioneer were not available. Its sound be implemented by a team of modeling to establish the appropriate experienced protected species observers footprint was estimated with JASCOs exclusion and disturbance zones; Marine Operations Noise Model (PSOs). The PSOs will be experienced • Vessel based PSO monitoring to (MONM) using an average source level biologists and Alaska Native personnel implement appropriate mitigation if trained as field observers. PSOs will be derived from a number of reported necessary, and to determine the effects acoustic measurements of comparable stationed on both drilling units, ice of the drilling program on marine management vessels, anchor handlers semi-submersible drill units, including mammals; the Ocean Bounty (Gales, 1982), SEDCO and other drilling support vessels • Passive acoustic monitoring of engaged in transit to and between drill 708 (Greene, 1986), and Ocean General drilling and vessel sounds and marine (McCauley, 1998). The model yielded a sites to monitor for marine mammals. mammal vocalizations; and The duties of the PSOs will include; propagation range of 0.22 mi (0.35 km) • Aerial surveys with photographic for rms sound pressure levels of 120 dB watching for and identifying marine equipment over operations and in mammals, recording their numbers, for the Polar Pioneer while drilling at coastal and nearshore waters with the Burger Prospect. recording distances and reactions of photographic equipment to help marine mammals to exploration drilling In addition to drilling and MLC determine the effects of project activities construction, numerous activities in activities, initiating mitigation measures on marine mammals; and seismic when appropriate, and reporting results support of exploration drilling produce activity mitigation measures during continuous sounds above 120 dB (rms). of the vessel based monitoring program, acquisition of the ZVSP surveys. which will include the estimation of the These activities in direct support of the The potential disturbance of marine number of marine mammal ‘‘exposures’’ moored drilling units include ice mammals during drilling activities will as defined by the NMFS and stipulated management, anchor handling, and be mitigated through the in the IHA. supply/discharge sampling vessels The vessel based work will provide: implementation of several vessel based using DP thrusters. Detailed sound • The basis for initiating real-time mitigation measures as necessary. characterizations for each of these mitigation, if necessary, as required by (1) Exclusion and Disturbance Zones activities are presented in the 2012 the various permits that Shell receives; Comprehensive Report for NMFS’ 2012 • Information needed to estimate the Mitigation for NMFS’ incidental take IHA (LGL et al. 2013). number of ‘‘exposures’’ of marine authorizations typically includes ‘‘safety The source levels for exploration mammals to sound levels that may radii’’ or ‘‘exclusion zones’’ for marine drilling and related support activities result in harassment, which must be mammals around airgun arrays and are not high enough to cause temporary other impulsive industrial sound reduction in hearing sensitivity or reported to NMFS; ≥ • Data on the occurrence, sources where received levels are 180 permanent hearing damage to marine ≥ distribution, and activities of marine dB re 1 mPa (rms) for cetaceans and 190 mammals. Consequently, mitigation as mammals in the areas where drilling dB re 1 mPa (rms) for pinnipeds. These described for seismic activities activity is conducted; zones are based on a cautionary including ramp ups, power downs, and • Information to compare the assumption that sound energy at lower shut downs should not be necessary for distances, distributions, behavior, and received levels will not injure these exploration drilling activities. However, movements of marine mammals relative animals or impair their hearing abilities, Shell plans to use PSOs onboard the to the drilling unit during times with but that higher received levels might drilling units, ice management, and and without drilling activity occurring; have some such effects. Disturbance or anchor handling vessels to monitor • A communication channel to behavioral effects to marine mammals marine mammals and their responses to coastal communities including whalers; from underwater sound may occur from industry activities, in addition to and exposure to sound at distances greater initiating mitigation measures should • Employment and capacity building than these zones (Richardson et al. in-field measurements of the activities for local residents, with one objective 1995). The NMFS assumes that marine indicate conditions that may present a being to develop a larger pool of mammals exposed to pulsed airgun threat to the health and well-being of experienced Alaska Native PSOs. sounds with received levels ≥160 dB re marine mammals. The vessel based monitoring will be 1 mPa (rms) or continuous sounds from operated and administered consistent vessel activities with received levels (B) ZVSP Surveys with monitoring programs conducted ≥120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) have the Two sound sources have been during past exploration drilling potential to be disturbed. These sound proposed by Shell for the ZVSP surveys. activities, seismic and shallow hazards level thresholds are currently used by The first is a small airgun array that surveys, or alternative requirements NMFS to define acoustic disturbance consists of three 150 in3 (2,458 cu cm3) stipulated in permits issued to Shell. (harassment) criteria. airguns for a total volume of 450 in3

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11753

(7,374 cm3). The second ZVSP sound injury or impairment of their hearing Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed source consists of two 250 in3 (4,097 abilities. by NMFS should be able to accomplish, cm3) airguns with a total volume of 500 During the proposed ZVSP surveys, have a reasonable likelihood of in3 (8,194 cm3). Sound footprints of the the operator will ramp up the airgun accomplishing (based on current ZVSP airgun array configurations were arrays slowly. Full ramp ups (i.e., from science), or contribute to the estimated using JASCO Applied a cold start when no airguns have been accomplishment of one or more of the Sciences’ Marine Operations Noise firing) will begin by firing a single general goals listed below: Model (MONM). The model results were airgun in the array. A full ramp up will 1. Avoidance or minimization of maximized over all water depths not begin until there has been injury or death of marine mammals between 9.9 and 23 ft (3 and 7 m) to observation of the exclusion zone by wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may yield sound level isopleths as a function PSOs for a minimum of 30 minutes to contribute to this goal). of range and direction from the source. ensure that no marine mammals are 2. A reduction in the numbers of The 450 in3 airgun array at a source present. The entire exclusion zones marine mammals (total number or depth of 23 ft (7 m) yielded the must be visible during the 30 minutes number at biologically important time maximum ranges to the ≥190, ≥180, and leading into to a full ramp up. If the or location) exposed to received levels ≥160 dB (rms) isopleths. The estimated entire exclusion zone is not visible, a of noises generated from exploration 95th percentile distances to these ramp up from a cold start cannot begin. drilling and associated activities, or thresholds were: 190 dB = 558 ft (170 If a marine mammal is sighted within other activities expected to result in the m), 180 dB = 3,018 ft (920 m), and 160 the relevant exclusion zone during the take of marine mammals (this goal may dB = 39,239 ft (11,960 m). These 30 minutes prior to ramp up, ramp up contribute to 1, above, or to reducing distances were multiplied by 1.5 as a will be delayed until the marine harassment takes only). 3. A reduction in the number of times conservative measure, and the resulting mammal is sighted outside of the (total number or number at biologically radii are shown in Table 1. exclusion zone or is not sighted for at important time or location) individuals PSOs on the drilling units will least 15–30 minutes: 15 minutes for would be exposed to received levels of initially use the radii in Table 1 for small odontocetes and pinnipeds, or 30 noises generated from exploration monitoring and mitigation purposes minutes for baleen whales and large drilling and associated activities, or during ZVSP surveys. An acoustics odontocetes. other activities expected to result in the contractor will perform direct (3) Power Downs and Shut Downs take of marine mammals (this goal may measurements of the received levels of contribute to 1, above, or to reducing underwater sound versus distance and A power down is the immediate reduction in the number of operating harassment takes only). direction from the ZVSP array using 4. A reduction in the intensity of energy sources from all firing to some calibrated hydrophones. The acoustic exposures (either total number or smaller number. A shut down is the data will be analyzed as quickly as number at biologically important time immediate cessation of firing of all reasonably practicable and used to or location) to received levels of noises energy sources. The arrays will be verify (and if necessary adjust) the generated from exploration drilling and immediately powered down whenever a threshold radii distances during later associated activities, or other activities marine mammal is sighted approaching ZVSP surveys. The mitigation measures expected to result in the take of marine close to or within the applicable to be implemented will include pre- mammals (this goal may contribute to a, exclusion zone of the full arrays, but is ramp up watches, ramp ups, power above, or to reducing the severity of outside the applicable exclusion zone of downs and shut downs as described harassment takes only). below. the single source. If a marine mammal 5. Avoidance or minimization of is sighted within the applicable adverse effects to marine mammal TABLE 1—ESTIMATED DISTANCES OF exclusion zone of the single energy ≥ habitat, paying special attention to the THE 190, 180, AND 160, dB (rms) source, the entire array will be shut food base, activities that block or limit ISOPLETHS TO BE USED FOR MITI- down (i.e., no sources firing). passage to or from biologically GATION PURPOSES DURING ZVSP Mitigation Conclusions important areas, permanent destruction SURVEYS UNTIL SSV RESULTS ARE of habitat, or temporary destruction/ NMFS has carefully evaluated the AVAILABLE disturbance of habitat during a applicant’s proposed mitigation biologically important time. measures and considered a range of Estimated 6. For monitoring directly related to Threshold levels in dB re 1 μPa other measures in the context of (rms) distance mitigation—an increase in the (m) ensuring that NMFS prescribes the probability of detecting marine means of effecting the least practicable mammals, thus allowing for more ≥190 ...... 255 impact on the affected marine mammal ≥ effective implementation of the 180 ...... 1,380 species and stocks and their habitat. Our ≥160 ...... 11,960 mitigation. evaluation of potential measures Based on our evaluation of the included consideration of the following (2) Ramp Ups applicant’s proposed measures, as well factors in relation to one another: as other measures considered by NMFS, A ramp up of an airgun array provides • The manner in which, and the NMFS has preliminarily determined a gradual increase in sound levels, and degree to which, the successful that the proposed mitigation measures involves a step-wise increase in the implementation of the measure is provide the means of effecting the least number and total volume of airguns expected to minimize adverse impacts practicable impact on marine mammals firing until the full volume is achieved. to marine mammals, species or stocks and their habitat, The purpose of a ramp up (or ‘‘soft • The proven or likely efficacy of the paying particular attention to rookeries, start’’) is to ‘‘warn’’ cetaceans and specific measure to minimize adverse mating grounds, and areas of similar pinnipeds in the vicinity of the airguns impacts as planned, and significance. and to provide time for them to leave • The practicability of the measure Proposed measures to ensure the area, thus avoiding any potential for applicant implementation. availability of such species or stock for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11754 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

taking for certain subsistence uses are (need to be able to accurately predict detailed notes will be provided to the discussed later in this document (see received level, distance from source, incoming crew leader. Other ‘‘Impact on Availability of Affected and other pertinent information); communications such as email, fax, Species or Stock for Taking for D Distribution and/or abundance and/or phone communication between Subsistence Uses’’ section). comparisons in times or areas with the current and oncoming crew leaders during each rotation will also occur Proposed Monitoring and Reporting concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli; when necessary. In the event of an In order to issue an ITA for an 4. An increased knowledge of the unexpected crew change Shell will activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the affected species; and facilitate such communications to MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 5. An increase in our understanding insure monitoring consistency among ‘‘requirements pertaining to the of the effectiveness of certain mitigation shifts. monitoring and reporting of such and monitoring measures. taking.’’ The MMPA implementing (C) Observer Qualifications and regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) Proposed Monitoring Measures Training indicate that requests for ITAs must 1. Protected Species Observers Crew leaders serving as PSOs will include the suggested means of have experience from one or more accomplishing the necessary monitoring Vessel based monitoring for marine projects with operators in Alaska or the and reporting that will result in mammals will be done by trained PSOs Canadian Beaufort. increased knowledge of the species and on both drilling units and ice Biologist-observers will have previous of the level of taking or impacts on management and anchor handler vessels PSO experience, and crew leaders will populations of marine mammals that are throughout the exploration drilling be highly experienced with previous expected to be present in the proposed activities. The observers will monitor vessel based marine mammal action area. Shell submitted a marine the occurrence and behavior of marine monitoring projects. Resumes for those mammal monitoring plan as part of the mammals near the drilling units, ice individuals will be provided to the IHA application. It can be found in management and anchor handling NMFS for approval. All PSOs will be Appendix B of the Shell’s IHA vessels, during all daylight periods trained and familiar with the marine application. The plan may be modified during the exploration drilling mammals of the area. A PSO handbook, or supplemented based on comments or operation, and during most periods adapted for the specifics of the planned new information received from the when exploration drilling is not being Shell drilling program, will be prepared public during the public comment conducted. PSO duties will include and distributed beforehand to all PSOs. period or from the peer review panel watching for and identifying marine PSOs will also complete a two-day (see the ‘‘Monitoring Plan Peer Review’’ mammals; recording their numbers, training and refresher session on marine section later in this document). distances, and reactions to the mammal monitoring, to be conducted Monitoring measures prescribed by exploration drilling activities; and shortly before the anticipated start of the NMFS should accomplish one or more documenting exposures to sound levels drilling season. The training sessions of the following general goals: that may constitute harassment as will be conducted by marine 1. An increase in the probability of defined by NMFS. PSOs will help mammalogists with extensive crew detecting marine mammals, both within ensure that the vessel communicates leader experience from previous vessel the mitigation zone (thus allowing for with the Communications and Call based seismic monitoring programs in more effective implementation of the Centers (Com Centers) in Native villages the Arctic. mitigation) and in general to generate along the Chukchi Sea coast. Primary objectives of the training more data to contribute to the analyses (A) Number of Observers include: mentioned below; • Review of the 4MP for this project, 2. An increase in our understanding A sufficient number of PSOs will be including any amendments adopted or of how many marine mammals are onboard to meet the following criteria: specified by NMFS in the final IHA or • likely to be exposed to levels of noises 100 percent monitoring coverage other agreements in which Shell may generated from exploration drilling and during all periods of exploration drilling elect to participate; associated activities that we associate operations in daylight; • Review of marine mammal sighting, with specific adverse effects, such as • Maximum of four consecutive hours identification, (photographs and videos) behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS; on watch per PSO; and and distance estimation methods, 3. An increase in our understanding • Maximum of approximately 12 including any amendments specified by of how marine mammals respond to hours on watch per day per PSO. NMFS in the IHA (if issued); stimuli expected to result in take and PSO teams will consist of trained • Review operation of specialized how anticipated adverse effects on Alaska Natives and field biologist equipment (e.g., reticle binoculars, big individuals (in different ways and to observers. An experienced field crew eye binoculars, night vision devices, varying degrees) may impact the leader will be on every PSO team aboard GPS system); and population, species, or stock the drilling units, ice management and • Review of data recording and data (specifically through effects on annual anchor handling vessels, and other entry systems, including procedures for rates of recruitment or survival) through support vessels during the exploration recording data on mammal sightings, any of the following methods: drilling program. The total number of exploration drilling and monitoring D Behavioral observations in the PSOs aboard may decrease later in the activities, environmental conditions, presence of stimuli compared to season as the duration of daylight and entry error control. These observations in the absence of stimuli decreases. procedures will be implemented (need to be able to accurately predict (B) Crew Rotation through use of a customized computer received level, distance from source, databases and laptop computers. and other pertinent information); Shell anticipates that there will be D Physiological measurements in the provisions for crew rotation at least (D) PSO Handbook presence of stimuli compared to every three to six weeks to avoid A PSO Handbook will be prepared for observations in the absence of stimuli observer fatigue. During crew rotations Shell’s monitoring program. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11755

Handbook will contain maps, 360o view of the water. The observer(s) maximize time spent focused on the illustrations, and photographs as well as will scan systematically with the naked water. copies of important documents and eye and 7 x 50 reticle binoculars, PSO’s are instructed to identify descriptive text and are intended to supplemented with Big-eye binoculars animals as unknown when appropriate provide guidance and reference and night-vision equipment when rather than strive to identify an animal information to trained individuals who needed. Personnel on the bridge will when there is significant uncertainty. will participate as PSOs. The following assist the marine mammal observer(s) in PSOs should also provide any sightings topics will be covered in the PSO watching for pinnipeds and cetaceans. cues they used and any distinguishable Handbook: New or inexperienced PSOs will be features of the animal even if they are • Summary overview descriptions of paired with an experienced PSO or not able to identify the animal and the project, marine mammals and experienced field biologist so that the record it as unidentified. Emphasis will underwater sound energy, the 4MP quality of marine mammal observations also be placed on recording what was (vessel-based, aerial, acoustic and data recording is kept consistent. not seen, such as dorsal features. measurements, special studies), the IHA Information to be recorded by marine (A) Monitoring at Night and in Poor (if issued) and other regulations/ mammal observers will include the Visibility permits/agencies, the Marine Mammal same types of information that were Protection Act; recorded during previous monitoring Night-vision equipment ‘‘Generation • Monitoring and mitigation projects (e.g., Moulton and Lawson 3’’ binocular image intensifiers or objectives and procedures, including 2002; Reiser et al. 2010, 2011; Bisson et equivalent units will be available for use initial exclusion and disturbance zones; al. 2013). When a mammal sighting is when needed. However, past experience • Responsibilities of staff and crew made, the following information about with night-vision devices (NVDs) in the regarding the 4MP; the sighting will be carefully and Beaufort Sea and elsewhere indicates • Instructions for staff and crew accurately recorded: that NVDs are not nearly as effective as regarding the 4MP; • Species, group size, age/size/sex visual observation during daylight hours • Data recording procedures: codes categories (if determinable), physical (e.g., Harris et al. 1997, 1998; Moulton and coding instructions, common description of features that were and Lawson 2002; Hartin et al. 2013). coding mistakes, electronic database; observed or determined not to be (B) Specialized Field Equipment navigational, marine physical, and present in the case of unknown or drilling data recording, field data sheet; unidentified animals; Shell will provide the following • Use of specialized field equipment • Behavior when first sighted and specialized field equipment for use by (e.g., reticle binoculars, Big-eye after initial sighting; the onboard PSOs: reticle binoculars, binoculars, NVDs, laser rangefinders); • Heading (if consistent), bearing and Big-eye binoculars, GPS unit, laptop • Reticle binocular distance scale; distance from observer; computers, night vision binoculars, and • Table of wind speed, Beaufort wind • Apparent reaction to activities (e.g., possibly digital still and digital video force, and sea state codes; none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, cameras. Big eye binoculars will be • Data storage and backup etc.), closest point of approach, and mounted and used on key monitoring procedures; behavioral pace; vessels including the drilling units, ice • List of species that might be • Time, location, speed, and activity management vessels and the anchor encountered: identification, natural of the vessel, sea state, ice cover, handler. history; visibility, and sun glare, on support (C) Field Data-Recording, Verification, • Safety precautions while onboard; vessels the distance and bearing to the Handling, and Security • Crew and/or personnel discord; drilling unit will also be recorded; and conflict resolution among PSOs and • Positions of other vessel(s) in the The observers on the drilling units crew; vicinity of the observer location. and support vessels will record their • Drug and alcohol policy and testing; The vessel’s position, speed, water observations directly into computers • Scheduling of cruises and watches; depth, sea state, ice cover, visibility, and using a custom software package. The • Communications; sun glare will also be recorded at the accuracy of the data entry will be • List of field gear provided; start and end of each observation watch, verified in the field by computerized • Suggested list of personal items to every 30 minutes during a watch, and validity checks as the data are entered, pack; whenever there is a change in any of and by subsequent manual checking. • Suggested literature, or literature those variables. These procedures will allow initial cited; Distances to nearby marine mammals summaries of data to be prepared during • Field reporting requirements and will be estimated with binoculars and shortly after the field season, and procedures; (Fujinon 7 x 50 binoculars) containing will facilitate transfer of the data to • Copies of the IHA will be made a reticle to measure the vertical angle of statistical, graphical or other programs available; and the line of sight to the animal relative for further processing. Quality control of • Areas where vessels need to the horizon. the data will be facilitated by (1) the permission to operate such as the An electronic database will be used to start-of-season training session, (2) Ledyard Bay Critical Habitat Unit record and collate data obtained from subsequent supervision by the onboard (LBCHU). visual observations during the vessel- field crew leader, and (3) ongoing data based study. The PSOs will enter the checks during the field season. 2. Vessel-Based Monitoring data into the custom data entry program The data will be sent off of the vessel Methodology installed on field laptops. The data to Anchorage on a daily basis and The observer(s) will watch for marine entry program automates the data entry backed up regularly onto storage devices mammals from the best available process and reduces data entry errors on the vessel, and stored at separate vantage point on the drilling units and and maximizes PSO time spent looking locations on the vessel. If practicable, support vessels. Ideally this vantage at the water. PSOs also have voice hand-written data sheets will be point is an elevated stable platform from recorders available to them. This is photocopied daily during the field which the PSO has an unobstructed another tool that will allow PSOs to season. Data will be secured further by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11756 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

having data sheets and backup data 3. Acoustic Monitoring Plan perpendicular to a sail track on which devices carried back to the Anchorage Exploration Drilling, ZVSP, and Vessel all Shell contracted vessels will transit. office during crew rotations. Noise Measurements This geometry is designed to obtain In addition to routine PSO duties, sound level measurements as a function Exploration drilling sounds are of distance and direction. The fore and observers will be encouraged to record expected to vary significantly with time aft directions are sampled continuously comments about their observations into due to variations in the level of over longer distances to 3 and 6 miles the ‘‘comment’’ field in the database. operations and the different types of (5 and 10 km) respectively, while Copies of these records will be available equipment used at different times broadside and other directions are to the observers for reference if they onboard the drilling units. The goals of sampled as the vessels pass closer to the wish to prepare a statement about their these measurements are: recorders. observations. If prepared, this statement • To quantify the absolute sound Vessel sound measurements will be would be included in the 90-day and levels produced by exploration drilling processed and reported in a manner comprehensive reports documenting the and to monitor their variations with similar to that used by Shell and other monitoring work. time, distance and direction from the operators in the Beaufort and Chukchi drilling unit; PSOs will be able to plot sightings in Seas during seismic survey operations. • To measure the sound levels The measurements will further be near real-time for their vessel. produced by vessels while operating in Significant sightings from key vessels analyzed to calculate source levels. direct support of exploration drilling Source directivity effects will be including drilling units, ice operations. These vessels will include examined and reported. Preliminary management, anchor handlers and crew change vessels, tugs, ice- vessel characterization measurements aircraft will be relayed between management vessels, and spill response will be reported in a field report to be platforms to keep observers aware of vessels not measured in 2012; and delivered 120 hours after the recorders animals that may be in or near the area • To measure the sound levels are retrieved and data downloaded. but may not be visible to the observer produced by an end-of-hole zero-offset Those results will include sound level at any one time. Emphasis will be vertical seismic profile (ZVSP) survey data but not source level calculations. placed on relaying sightings with the using a stationary sound source. All vessel characterization results, greatest potential to involve mitigation Sound characterization and including source levels, will be reported or reconsideration of a vessel’s course measurements of all exploration drilling in 1/3-octave bands in the project 90- (e.g., large group of bowheads). activities will be performed using five day report. Autonomous Multichannel Acoustic Observer training will emphasize the Recorders (AMAR) deployed on the (B) Zero-Offset Vertical Seismic use of ‘‘comments’’ for sightings that seabed along the same radial at Profiling Sound Monitoring may be considered unique or not fully distances of 0.31, 0.62, 1.2, 2.5 and 5 mi Shell states that it may conduct a captured by standard data codes. In (0.5,1, 2, 4 and 8 km) from each drilling geophysical survey referred to as a zero- addition to the standard marine unit. All five recording stations will offset vertical seismic profile, or ZVSP, mammal sightings forms, a specialized sample at least at 32 kHz, providing at two drill sites in 2015. During ZVSP form was developed for recording calibrated acoustic measurements in the surveys, an airgun array, which is much traditional knowledge and natural 5 Hz to 16 kHz frequency band. The smaller than those used for routine history observations. PSOs will be logarithmic spacing of the recorders is seismic surveys, is deployed at a encouraged to use this form to capture designed to sample the attenuation of location near or adjacent to the drilling observations related to any aspect of the drilling unit sounds with distance. The unit, while receivers are placed arctic environment and the marine autonomous recorders will sample (temporarily anchored) in the wellbore. mammals found within it. Examples through completion of the first well, to The sound source (airgun array) is fired might include relationships between ice provide a detailed record of sounds repeatedly, and the reflected sonic and marine mammal sightings, marine emitted from all activities. These waves are recorded by receivers mammal behaviors, comparisons of recorders will be retrieved and their (geophones) located in the wellbore. observations among different years/ data analyzed and reported in the The geophones, typically a string of seasons, etc. Voice recorders will also be project’s 90-day report. them, are then raised up to the next available for observers to use during The deployment of drilling sound interval in the wellbore and the process periods when large numbers of animals monitoring equipment will occur before, is repeated until the entire wellbore has been surveyed. The purpose of the may be present and it is difficult to or as soon as possible after the ZVSP survey is to gather geophysical capture all of the sightings on written or Discoverer and the Polar Pioneer are on site. Activity logs of exploration drilling information at various depths in the digital forms. These recorders can also operations and nearby vessel activities wellbore, which can then be used to tie- be used to capture traditional will be maintained to correlate with in or ground truth geophysical knowledge and natural history these acoustic measurements. All information from the previously observations should individuals feel results, including back-propagated collected 2D and 3D seismic surveys more comfortable using the recorders source levels for each operation, will be with geological data collected within rather than writing down their reported in the 90-day report. the wellbore. comments. Copies of these records will Shell will conduct a ZVSP surveys in be available to all observers for (A) Vessel Sound Characterization which the sound source is maintained at reference if they wish to prepare a Vessel sound characterizations will be a constant location near the wellbore. statement about their observations for performed using dedicated recorders Two sound sources have been proposed reporting purposes. If prepared, this deployed at sufficient distances from by Shell for the ZVSP surveys in 2015. statement would be included in the 90- exploration drilling operations so that The first is a small airgun array that day and final reports documenting the sound produced by those activities does consists of three 150 in3 (2,458 cu cm3) monitoring work. not interfere. Three AMAR acoustic airguns for a total volume of 450 in3 recorders will be deployed on and (7,374 cm3). The second ZVSP sound

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11757

source consists of two 250 in3 (4,097 cu sound energy equivalent level Leq (1- July–October off the four main transect cm3) airguns with a total volume of 500 hour). Similar graphs for long time locations: Cape Lisburne, Point Lay, in3 (8,194 cm3). periods will be generated as part of the Wainwright and Barrow. All of these A ZVSP survey is typically conducted data analysis performed for indicating offshore systems will capture sounds at each well after total depth is reached drilling sound variation with time in associated with exploration drilling, but may be conducted at a shallower selected frequency bands. where present, over large distances to depth. For each survey, the sound help characterize the sound source (airgun array) would be deployed (D) Reporting of Results transmission properties in the Chukchi over the side of the Discoverer or the Acoustic sound level results will be Sea. Six additional summer AMAR Polar Pioneer with a crane. The sound reported in the 90-day and recorders will be deployed around the source will be positioned 50–200ft (15– comprehensive reports for this program. Burger drill sites to monitor directional 61 m) from the wellhead (depending on The results reported will include: variations and longer-range propagation crane location), at a depth of ∼10–23ft • Sound source levels for the drilling of drilling-related sounds. These (3–7 m) below the water surface. units and all drilling support vessels; recorders will also be used to examine Receivers will be temporarily anchored • Spectrogram and band level versus marine mammal vocalization patterns in in the wellbore at depth. The sound time plots computed from the vicinity of exploration drilling source will be pressured up to 3,000 continuous recordings obtained from activities. The regional recorders will be pounds per square inch (psi), and the hydrophone systems; retrieved in early October 2015; acoustic • activated 5–7 times at approximately 20- Hourly Leq levels at the monitoring will continue through the second intervals. The receivers will then hydrophone locations; and • winter with 8 AMAR recorders be moved to the next interval of the Correlation of exploration drilling deployed October 2015–August 2016. wellbore and re-anchored, after which source levels with the type of The winter recorders will sample at 16 the airgun array will again be activated exploration drilling operation being kHz on a 17% duty cycle (40 minutes 5–7 times. This process will be repeated performed. These results will be every 4 hours). The winter recorders until the entire wellbore has been obtained by observing differences in deployed in previous years have surveyed in this manner. The interval drilling sound associated with provided important information about between anchor points for the receiver differences in drilling unit activities as fall and spring migrations of bowhead, array is usually 200–300ft (61–91 m). A indicated in detailed drilling unit logs. beluga, walrus and several seal species. typical ZVSP survey takes about 10–14 Acoustic ‘‘Net’’ Array in Chukchi Sea The Chukchi acoustic net array will hours to complete per well (depending produce an extremely large dataset on the depth of the well and the number This section describes acoustic comprising several Terabytes of acoustic of anchoring points in each well). studies that were undertaken from 2006 data. The analyses of these data require ZVSP sound verification through 2013 in the Chukchi Sea as part identification of marine mammal measurements will be performed using of the Joint Monitoring Program and that vocalizations. Because of the very large either the AMARs that are deployed for will be continued by Shell during amount of data to be processed, the drilling unit sound characterizations, or exploration drilling activities. The analysis methods will incorporate by JASCO Ocean Bottom Hydrophone acoustic ‘‘net’’ array used during the automated vocalization detection (OBH) recorders. The use of AMARS or 2006–2013 field seasons in the Chukchi algorithms that have been developed OBHs depends on the specific timing Sea was designed to accomplish two over several years. While the these measurements will be required by main objectives. The first was to collect hydrophones used in the net array are NMFS; the AMARs will not be retrieved information on the occurrence and not directional, and therefore not until several days after the ZVSP as they distribution of marine mammals capable of accurate localization of are intended to monitor during (including beluga whale, bowhead detections, the number of vocalizations retrievals of drilling unit anchors and whale, and other species) that may be detected on each of the sensors provides related support activities. If the ZVSP available to subsistence hunters near a measure of the relative spatial acoustic measurements are required villages along the Chukchi Sea coast and distribution of some marine mammal sooner, four OBH recorders would be to document their relative abundance, species, assuming that vocalization deployed at the same locations and habitat use, and migratory patterns. The patterns are consistent within a species those could be retrieved immediately second objective was to measure the across the spatial and geographic following the ZVSP measurement. The ambient soundscape throughout the distribution of the hydrophone array. ZVSP measurements can be delivered eastern Chukchi Sea and to record These results therefore provide within 120 hours of retrieval and received levels of sounds from industry information such as timing of download of the data from either and other activities further offshore in migrations and routes of migration for instrument type. the Chukchi Sea. belugas and bowheads. A net array configuration similar to A second purpose of the Chukchi net (C) Acoustic Data Analyses that deployed in 2007–2013 is again array is to monitor the amplitude of Exploration drilling sound data will proposed. The basic components of this exploration drilling sound propagation be analyzed to extract a record of the effort consist of autonomous acoustic over a very large area. It is expected that frequency-dependent sound levels as a recorders deployed widely across the sounds from exploratory drilling function of time. These results are U.S. Chukchi Sea during the open water activities will be detectable on useful for correlating measured sound season and then more limited arrays hydrophone systems within energy events with specific survey during the winter season. These approximately 30 km of the drilling operations. The analysis provides calibrated systems sample at 16 kHz units when ambient sound energy absolute sound levels in finite frequency with 24-bit resolution, and are capable conditions are low. The drilling sound bands that can be tailored to match the of recording marine mammal sounds levels at recorder locations will be highest-sensitivity hearing ranges for and making anthropogenic noise quantified and reported. species of interest. The analyses will measurements. The net array Analysis of all acoustic data will be also consider sound level integrated configuration will include a regional prioritized to address the primary through 1-hour durations (referred to as array of 23 AMAR recorders deployed questions. The primary data analysis

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11758 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

questions are to (a) determine when, in-the-moment visual observations. offshore, the nearshore survey will be where, and what species of animals are Another benefit of photographs over conducted if weather permits. acoustically detected on each recorder visual observations is that photographs The aerial survey grids are designed (b) analyze data as a whole to determine can be reviewed by more than one to maximize coverage of the sound level offshore distributions as a function of independent observer allowing fields of the drilling units during the time, (c) quantify spatial and temporal quantification of detection, different exploratory drilling activities. variability in the ambient sound energy, identification and group size biases. The survey grids can be modified as and (d) measure received levels of The proposed photographic survey necessary based on weather and exploration drilling survey events and will provide imagery that can be used to whether a noisy activity or quiet activity drilling unit activities. The detection evaluate the ability of future studies to is taking place. The intensive survey data will be used to develop spatial and use the same image capturing systems in design maximizes the effort over the temporal animal detection distributions. an UAS where people would not be put area where sound levels are highest. The Statistical analyses will be used to test at risk. Although the two platforms are outer survey grid covers an elliptical for changes in animal detections and not the same, the slower airspeed and area with a 45 km radius near the center distributions as a function of different potentially lower flight altitude of the of the ellipse. The spacing of the outer variables (e.g., time of day, season, UAS would mean that the data quality survey lines is 10 km, and the spacing environmental conditions, ambient would be better from the UAS. Initial between the intensive and outer lines is sound energy, and drilling or vessel comparisons have been made between 5 km. The expanded survey grid covers sound levels). data collected by human observers on a larger survey area, and the design is board both the Chukchi and Beaufort based on an elliptical area with a 50 km 4. Chukchi Offshore Aerial radius centered on the well sties. For Photographic Monitoring Program aerial survey aircraft and the digital imagery collected in 2012. Overall, the both survey designs the main transects Shell has been reticent to conduct imagery provided better estimates of the will be spaced 10 km apart which will manned aerial surveys in the offshore number of large cetaceans and allow even coverage of the survey area Chukchi Sea because conducting those pinnipeds present but fewer sightings during a single flight if weather surveys puts people at risk. There is a were identified to species in the imagery conditions permit completion of a strong desire, however, to obtain data on than by PSOs, because the PSOs had survey. A random starting point will be marine mammal distribution in the sightings in view for a longer period of selected for each survey and the evenly offshore Chukchi Sea and Shell will spaced lines will be shifted NE or SW time and could use behavior to conduct a photographic aerial survey along the perimeter of the elliptical differentiate species. The comparisons that would put fewer people at risk as survey area based on the start point. The indicated that some cetaceans that were an alternative to the fully-manned aerial total length of survey lines will be about not seen by PSOs were detected in the survey. The photographic survey would 1,000 km and the exact length will imagery; errors in identification were reduce the number of people on board depend on the location of the randomly made by the PSOs during the survey the aircraft from six persons to two selected start point. persons (the pilot and copilot) and that could be resolved from examination Following each survey, the imagery would serve as a pilot study for future of the imagery; cetaceans seen by PSOs will be downloaded from the memory surveys that would use an Unmanned were visible in the imagery; and during card to a portable hard drive and then Aerial System (UAS) to capture the periods with large numbers of sightings, backed up on a second hard drive and imagery. the imagery provided much better stored at accommodations in Barrow Aerial photographic surveys have estimates of numbers of sightings and until the second hard drive can be been used to monitor distribution and group size than the PSO data. transferred to Anchorage. In Anchorage, estimate densities of marine mammals Photographic surveys would start as the imagery will be processed through a in offshore areas since the mid-1980s, soon as the ice management, anchor computer-assisted analysis program to and before that, were used to estimate handler and drilling units are at or near identify where marine mammal numbers of animals in large the first drill site and would continue sightings might be located among the concentration areas. Digital photographs throughout the drilling period and until many images obtained. A team of provide many advantages over the drilling related vessels have left the trained photo analysts will review the observations made by people if the exploration drilling area. Since the photographs identified as having imagery has sufficient resolution (Koski current plans are for vessels to enter the potential sightings and record the et al. 2013). With photographs there is Chukchi Sea on or about 1 July, surveys appropriate data on each sighting. If constant detectability across the would be initiated on or about 3 July. time permits, a second review of some imagery, whereas observations by This start date differs from past of the images will be conducted while people decline with distance from the practices of beginning five days prior to in the field, but the sightings recorded center line of the survey area. initiation of an activity and continuing during the second pass will be Observations at the outer limits of the until five days after cessation of the identified in the database as secondary transect can decline to 5–10% of the activity because the presence of vessels sightings, so that biases associated with animals present for real-time with helidecks in the area where the detection in the imagery can be observations by people during an aerial overflights will occur is one of the main quantified. If time does not permit that survey. The distance from the trackline mitigations that will allow for safe review to be conducted while in the of sightings is more accurately operation of the overflight program this field, the review will be conducted by determined from photographs; group far offshore. The surveys will be based personnel in the office during or after size can be more accurately determined; out of Barrow and the same aircraft will the field season. A sample of images and sizes of animals can be measured, conduct the offshore surveys around the that are not identified by the computer- and hence much more accurately drilling units and the coastal saw-tooth assisted analysis program will be determined, in photographs. As a result pattern. The surveys of offshore areas examined in detail by the image of the latter capability, the presence or around the drilling units will take analysts to determine if the program has absence of a calf can be more accurately precedence over the sawtooth survey, missed marine mammal sightings. If the determined from a photograph than by but if weather does not permit surveying analysis program has missed mammal

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11759

sightings, these data will be to develop data on pinnipeds and harbor porpoises a single photograph; typically about correction factors to account for these because they are not reliably detectable 3,000 ft (914 m) altitude. When in missed sightings among the images that during review of the collected images shallow water, belugas and other marine were not examined. unless a third camera with a 50 mm or mammals are more sensitive to aircraft similar lens is deployed. over flights and other forms of 5. Chukchi Sea Coastal Aerial Survey Transects will be flown in a saw- disturbance than when they are offshore Nearshore aerial surveys of marine toothed pattern between the shore and (see Richardson et al. 1995 for a review). mammals in the Chukchi Sea were 23 mi (37 km) offshore as well as along They frequently leave shallow estuaries conducted over coastal areas to the coast from Point Barrow to Point when over flown at altitudes of 2,000– approximately 23 miles (mi) [37 Hope. This design will permit 3,000 ft (610–904 m); whereas they kilometers (km)] offshore in 2006–2008 completion of the survey in one to two rarely react to aircraft at 1,500 ft (457 m) and in 2010 in support of Shell’s days and will provide representative when offshore in deeper water. summer seismic exploration activities. coverage of the nearshore region. In 2012 these surveys were flown when Sawtooth transects were designed by Monitoring Plan Peer Review it was not possible to fly the placing transect start/end points every The MMPA requires that monitoring photographic transects out over the 34 mi (55 km) along the offshore plans be independently peer reviewed Burger well site due to weather or boundary of this 23 mi (37 km) wide ‘‘where the proposed activity may affect rescue craft availability. These surveys nearshore zone, and at midpoints the availability of a species or stock for provided data on the distribution and between those points along the coast. taking for subsistence uses’’ (16 U.S.C. abundance of marine mammals in The transect line start/end points will 1371(a)(5)(D)(ii)(III)). Regarding this nearshore waters of the Chukchi Sea. be shifted along both the coast and the requirement, NMFS’ implementing Shell plans to conduct these nearshore offshore boundary for each survey based regulations state, ‘‘Upon receipt of a aerial surveys in the Chukchi Sea as upon a randomized starting location, complete monitoring plan, and at its opportunities unfold and surveys will but overall survey distance will not vary discretion, [NMFS] will either submit be similar to those conducted during substantially. The coastline transect will the plan to members of a peer review previous years except that no PSOs will simply follow the coastline or barrier panel for review or within 60 days of be onboard the aircraft. As noted above, islands. As with past surveys of the receipt of the proposed monitoring plan, the first priority will be to conduct Chukchi Sea coast, coordination with schedule a workshop to review the photographic surveys around the coastal villages to avoid disturbance of plan’’ (50 CFR 216.108(d)). offshore exploration drilling activities, the beluga whale subsistence hunt will NMFS has established an but nearshore surveys will be conducted be extremely important. ‘‘No-fly’’ zones independent peer review panel to whenever weather does not permit around coastal villages or other hunting review Shell’s 4MP for Exploration flying offshore. As in past years, surveys areas established during Drilling of Selected Lease Areas in the in the southern part of the nearshore communications with village Alaskan Chukchi Sea in 2015. The panel survey area will depend on the end of representatives will be in place until the is scheduled to meet in early March the beluga hunt near Point Lay. In past end of the hunting season. 2015, and will provide comments to years, Point Lay has requested that Standard aerial survey procedures NMFS shortly after they meet. After aerial surveys not be conducted until used in previous marine mammal completion of the peer review, NMFS after the beluga hunt has ended and so projects (by Shell as well as by others) will consider all recommendations the start of surveys has been delayed will be followed. This will facilitate made by the panel, incorporate until mid-July. comparisons and (as appropriate) appropriate changes into the monitoring Alaskan Natives from villages along pooling with other data, and will requirements of the IHA (if issued), and the east coast of the Chukchi Sea hunt minimize controversy about the chosen publish the panel’s findings and marine mammals during the summer survey procedures. The aircraft will be recommendations in the final IHA and Native communities are concerned flown at 110–120 knots ground speed notice of issuance or denial document. that offshore oil and gas exploration and usually at an altitude of 1,000 ft activities may negatively impact their (305 m). Aerial surveys at an altitude of Reporting Measures ability to harvest marine mammals. Of 1,000 ft. (305 m) do not provide much (1) SSV Report particular concern are potential impacts information about seals but are suitable on the beluga harvest at Point Lay and for bowhead, beluga, and gray whales. A report on the results of the acoustic on future bowhead harvests at Point The need for a 1,000+ ft (305+ m) or verification measurements, including at Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright and 1,500+ ft (454+ m) cloud ceiling will a minimum the measured 190-, 180-, Barrow. Other species of concern in the limit the dates and times when surveys 160-, and 120-dB (rms) radii of the Chukchi Sea include the gray whale; can be flown. Selection of a higher drilling units, and support vessels, will bearded, ringed, and spotted seals. Gray altitude for surveys would result in a be reported in the 90-day report. A whale and harbor porpoise are expected significant reduction in the number of report of the acoustic verification to be the most numerous cetacean days during which surveys would be measurements of the ZVSP airgun array species encountered during the possible, impairing the ability of the will be submitted within 120 hr after proposed aerial survey; although harbor aerial program to meet its objectives. collection and analysis of those porpoise are abundant they are difficult The surveyed area will include waters measurements once that part of the to detect from aircraft because of their where belugas are usually available to program is implemented. The ZVSP small size and brief surfacing. Beluga subsistence hunters. If large acoustic array report will specify the whales may occur in high numbers early concentrations of belugas are distances of the exclusion zones that in the season. The ringed seal is likely encountered during the survey, the were adopted for the ZVSP program. to be the most abundant pinniped aircraft will climb to ∼10,000 ft (3,050 Prior to completion of these species. The current aerial survey m) altitude to avoid disturbing the measurements, Shell will use the radii program will be designed to collect cetaceans. If cetaceans are in offshore outlined in their application and distribution data on cetaceans but will areas, the aircraft will climb high proposed in Tables 2 and 3 of this be limited in its ability to collect similar enough to include all cetaceans within document.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11760 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

(2) Field Reports conditions, ambient noise, vessel type, detail in the ‘‘Potential Effects of the Throughout the exploration drilling operation conditions). Specified Activity on Marine Mammals’’ The initial technical report is due to program, the biologists will prepare a section found earlier in this document. NMFS within 90 days of the completion report each day or at such other interval The potential effects of sound from the of Shell’s Chukchi Sea exploration as required summarizing the recent proposed exploratory drilling program drilling program. The ‘‘90-day’’ report results of the monitoring program. The without any mitigation might include will be subject to review and comment reports will summarize the species and one or more of the following: tolerance; by NMFS. Any recommendations made numbers of marine mammals sighted. masking of natural sounds; behavioral by NMFS must be addressed in the final disturbance; non-auditory physical These reports will be provided to NMFS report prior to acceptance by NMFS. effects; and, at least in theory, as required. (4) Notification of Injured or Dead temporary or permanent hearing (3) Technical Reports Marine Mammals impairment (Richardson et al., 1995a). As discussed earlier in this document, The results of Shell’s 2015 Chukchi Shell will be required to notify NMFS’ Sea exploratory drilling monitoring NMFS estimates that Shell’s activities Office of Protected Resources and will most likely result in behavioral program (i.e., vessel-based, aerial, and NMFS’ Stranding Network of any acoustic) will be presented in the ‘‘90- disturbance, including avoidance of the sighting of an injured or dead marine ensonified area or changes in speed, day’’ and Final Technical reports under mammal. Based on different the proposed IHA. Shell proposes that direction, and/or diving profile of one or circumstances, Shell may or may not be more marine mammals. For reasons the Technical Reports will include: (1) required to stop operations upon such a Summaries of monitoring effort (e.g., discussed previously in this document, sighting. Shell will provide NMFS with hearing impairment (TTS and PTS) is total hours, total distances, and marine the species or description of the mammal distribution through study highly unlikely to occur based on the animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) fact that most of the equipment to be period, accounting for sea state and (including carcass condition if the used during Shell’s proposed drilling other factors affecting visibility and animal is dead), location, time of first program does not have source levels detectability of marine mammals); (2) discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), high enough to elicit even mild TTS analyses of the effects of various factors and photo or video (if available). The and/or the fact that certain species are influencing detectability of marine specific language describing what Shell expected to avoid the ensonified areas mammals (e.g., sea state, number of must do upon sighting a dead or injured close to the operations. Additionally, observers, and fog/glare); (3) species marine mammal can be found in the non-auditory physiological effects are composition, occurrence, and ‘‘Proposed Incidental Harassment anticipated to be minor, if any would distribution of marine mammal Authorization’’ section later in this occur at all. sightings, including date, water depth, document. For continuous sounds, such as those numbers, age/size/gender categories (if produced by drilling operations and determinable), group sizes, and ice Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment during icebreaking activities, NMFS cover; (4) sighting rates of marine uses a received level of 120-dB (rms) to mammals during periods with and Except with respect to certain indicate the onset of Level B without drilling activities (and other activities not pertinent here, the MMPA harassment. For impulsive sounds, such variables that could affect detectability); defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of as those produced by the airgun array (5) initial sighting distances versus pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) during the ZVSP surveys, NMFS uses a drilling state; (6) closest point of has the potential to injure a marine received level of 160-dB (rms) to approach versus drilling state; (7) mammal or marine mammal stock in the indicate the onset of Level B observed behaviors and types of wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has harassment. Shell provided calculations movements versus drilling state; (8) the potential to disturb a marine for the 120-dB isopleths produced by numbers of sightings/individuals seen mammal or marine mammal stock in the aggregate sources and then used those versus drilling state; (9) distribution wild by causing disruption of behavioral isopleths to estimate takes by around the drilling units and support patterns, including, but not limited to, harassment. Additionally, Shell vessels versus drilling state; and (10) migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, provided calculations for the 160-dB estimates of take by harassment. This feeding, or sheltering [Level B isopleth produced by the airgun array information will be reported for both the harassment]. Only take by Level B and then used that isopleth to estimate vessel-based and aerial monitoring. behavioral harassment is anticipated as takes by harassment. Shell provides a Analysis of all acoustic data will be a result of the proposed drilling full description of the methodology prioritized to address the primary program. Noise propagation from the used to estimate takes by harassment in questions, which are to: (a) Determine drilling units, associated support vessels its IHA application (see ADDRESSES), when, where, and what species of (including during icebreaking if which is also provided in the following animals are acoustically detected on needed), and the airgun array are sections. each AMAR ; (b) analyze data as a expected to harass, through behavioral Shell has requested authorization to whole to determine offshore bowhead disturbance, affected marine mammal take bowhead, gray, fin, humpback, distributions as a function of time; (c) species or stocks. Additional minke, killer, and beluga whales, harbor quantify spatial and temporal variability disturbance to marine mammals may porpoise, and ringed, spotted, bearded, in the ambient noise; and (d) measure result from aircraft overflights and and ribbon seals incidental to received levels of drilling unit activities. visual disturbance of the drilling units exploration drilling, ice management/ The detection data will be used to or support vessels. However, based on icebreaking, and ZVSP activities. develop spatial and temporal animal the flight paths and altitude, impacts Additionally, Shell provided exposure distributions. Statistical analyses will be from aircraft operations are anticipated estimates and requested takes of used to test for changes in animal to be localized and minimal in nature. narwhal. However, as stated previously detections and distributions as a The full suite of potential impacts to in this document, sightings of this function of different variables (e.g., time marine mammals from various species are rare, and the likelihood of of day, time of season, environmental industrial activities was described in occurrence of narwhals in the proposed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11761

drilling area is minimal. Therefore, well as ‘‘average estimates’’ of the group size of the sightings was 2.2. A NMFS is not proposing to authorize take numbers of marine mammals potentially f(0) value of 2.841 and g(0) value of 0.58 of this species. affected have been derived. For a few from Harwood et al. (1996) were also marine mammal species, several density used in the density calculation resulting Basis for Estimating ‘‘Take by estimates were available. In those cases, in an average open-water density of Harassment’’ the mean and maximum estimates were 0.0024 belugas/km2 (Table 6–1 of ‘‘Take by Harassment’’ is described in determined from the reported densities Shell’s IHA application). The highest this section and was calculated in or survey data. In other cases only one density from the reported survey Shell’s application by multiplying the or no applicable estimate was available, periods (0.0049 belugas/km2, in 2012) expected densities of marine mammals so correction factors were used to arrive has been used as the maximum density that may occur near the exploratory at ‘‘average’’ and ‘‘maximum’’ estimates. that may occur in open-water habitat drilling operations by the area of water These are described in detail in the (Table 6–1 in Shell’s IHA application). likely to be exposed to continuous, non- following subsections. Specific data on the relative abundance ≥ pulse sounds 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) Detectability bias, quantified in part of beluga in open-water versus ice- during drilling unit operations or by f(0), is associated with diminishing margin habitat during the summer in the icebreaking activities and impulse sightability with increasing lateral ≥ Chukchi Sea is not available. However, sounds 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) created distance from the survey trackline. belugas are commonly associated with by seismic airguns during ZVSP Availability bias, g(0), refers to the fact ice, so an inflation factor of four was activities. NMFS evaluated and that there is <100% probability of used to estimate the ice-margin critiqued the methods provided in sighting an animal that is present along densities from the open-water densities. Shell’s application and determined that the survey trackline. Some sources Very low densities observed from they were appropriate to conduct the below included these correction factors vessels operating in the Chukchi Sea requisite MMPA analyses. This section in the reported densities (e.g. ringed during non-seismic periods and describes the estimated densities of seals in Bengtson et al. 2005) and the locations in July–August of 2006–2010 marine mammals that may occur in the best available correction factors were (0.0–0.0003/mi2, 0.0–0.0001/km2; project area. The area of water that may applied to reported results when they Hartin et al. 2013), also suggest the be ensonified to the above sound levels had not already been included (e.g. number of beluga whales likely to be is described further in the ‘‘Estimated Moore et al. 2000). present near the planned activities will Area Exposed to Sounds >120 dB or not be large. >160 dB re 1 mPa rms’’ subsection. (1) Cetaceans Eight species of cetaceans are known In the fall, beluga whale densities Marine Mammal Density Estimates to occur in the activity area. Three of the offshore in the Chukchi Sea are Marine mammal density estimates in nine species, bowhead, fin, and expected to be somewhat higher than in the Chukchi Sea have been derived for humpback whales, are listed as the summer because individuals of the two time periods, the summer period ‘‘endangered’’ under the ESA. eastern Chukchi Sea stock and the covering July and August, and the fall Beaufort Sea stock will be migrating period including September and (a) Beluga Whales south to their wintering grounds in the October. Animal densities encountered Summer densities of beluga whales in Bering Sea (Allen and Angliss 2012). in the Chukchi Sea during both of these offshore waters are expected to be low, Densities derived from survey results in time periods will further depend on the with somewhat higher densities in ice- the northern Chukchi Sea in Clarke and habitat zone within which the activities margin and nearshore areas. Past aerial Ferguson (in prep, cited in Shell 2014) are occurring: open water or ice margin. surveys have recorded few belugas in and Clarke et al. (2012, 2013) were used More ice is likely to be present in the the offshore Chukchi Sea during the as the average density for open-water area of activities during the July–August summer months (Moore et al. 2000). season estimates (Table 6–2 in Shell’s period, so summer ice-margin densities More recent aerial surveys of the IHA application). Clarke and Ferguson have been applied to 50% of the area Chukchi Sea from 2008–2012 flown by (in prep, cited in Shell 2014) and Clarke that may be ensonified from drilling and the NMML as part of the COMIDA et al. (2012, 2013) reported 17 beluga ZVSP activities in those months. Open project, now part of the Aerial Surveys sightings (28 individuals) during 22,255 water densities in the summer were of Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAMM) km of on-transect effort in water depths applied to the remaining 50 percent of project, reported 10 beluga sightings (22 36–50 m during the months of July the area. Less ice is likely to be present individuals) in offshore waters during through September. The mean group during the September–October period, 22,154 km of on-transect effort. Larger size of those three sightings was 1.6. A so fall ice-margin densities have been groups of beluga whales were recorded f(0) value of 2.841 and a g(0) value of applied to only 20% of the area that in nearshore areas, especially in June 0.58 from Harwood et al. (1996) were may be ensonified from drilling and and July during the spring migration used to calculate the average open-water ZVSP activities in those months. Fall (Clarke et al. 2012, 2013). Additionally, density of 0.0031 belugas/km2 (Table 6– open-water densities were applied to only one beluga sighting was recorded 2 in Shell IHA application). The highest the remaining 80 percent of the area. during >80,000 km of visual effort density from the reported periods Since ice management activities would during good visibility conditions from (0.0053 belugas/km2, in 2012) was again only occur within ice-margin habitat, industry vessels operating in the used as the maximum density that may the entire area potentially ensonified by Chukchi Sea in September–October of occur in open-water habitat. Moore et al. ice management activities has been 2006–2010 (Hartin et al. 2013). If (2000) reported lower than expected multiplied by the ice-margin densities belugas are present during the summer, beluga sighting rates in open-water in both seasons. they are more likely to occur in or near during fall surveys in the Beaufort and There is some uncertainty about the the ice edge or close to shore during Chukchi seas, so an inflation value of representativeness of the data and their northward migration. Effort and four was used to estimate the ice-margin assumptions used in the calculations. sightings reported by Clarke et al. (2012, densities from the open-water densities. To provide some allowance for the 2013) were used to calculate the average Based on the few beluga sightings from uncertainties, ‘‘maximum estimates’’ as open-water density estimate. The mean vessels operating in the Chukchi Sea

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11762 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

during non-seismic periods and to their wintering grounds in the Bering (c) Gray Whales locations in September–November of Sea, making it more likely those Gray whale densities are expected to 2006–2010 (Hartin et al. 2013), the bowheads will be encountered in the be much higher in the summer months relatively low densities shown in Table Chukchi Sea at this time of year. Moore than during the fall. Moore et al. (2000) 6–2 in Shell’s IHA application are et al. (2000) reported 34 bowhead found the distribution of gray whales in consistent with what is likely to be sightings during 44,354 km of on- the planned operational area was observed form vessels during the transect survey effort in the Chukchi Sea scattered and limited to nearshore areas planned exploration drilling activities. during September–October. Thomas et where most whales were observed in (b) Bowhead Whales al. (2011) also reported increased water less than 35 m deep. Thomas et al. (2011) also reported substantial By July, most bowhead whales are sightings on coastal surveys of the northeast of the Chukchi Sea, within or Chukchi Sea during October and declines in the sighting rates of gray migrating toward their summer feeding November of 2006–2010. GPS tagging of whales in the fall. The average open- grounds in the eastern Beaufort Sea. No bowheads appear to show that migration water summer density (Table 6–1 in bowheads were reported during 10,686 routes through the Chukchi Sea are Shell’s IHA application) was calculated km of on-transect effort in the Chukchi more variable than through the Beaufort from 2008–2012 aerial survey effort and Sea by Moore et al. (2000). Bowhead Sea (Quakenbush et al. 2010). Some of sightings in Clarke and Ferguson (in whales were also rarely sighted in July- the routes taken by bowheads remain prep, cited in Shell 2014) and Clarke et August of 2006–2010 during aerial well north of the planned drilling al. (2012, 2013) for water depths 36–50 surveys of the Chukchi Sea coast activities while others have passed near m including 98 sightings (137 individuals) during 22,154 km of on- (Thomas et al. 2011). This is consistent to or through the area. Kernel densities transect effort. The average group size of with movements of tagged whales estimated from GPS locations of whales those sightings was 1.4. Correction (ADFG 2010), all of which moved suggest that bowheads do not spend through the Chukchi Sea by early May factors f(0) = 2.49 (Forney and Barlow much time (e.g. feeding or resting) in the 1998) and g(0) = 0.30 (Forney and 2009, and tended to travel relatively north-central Chukchi Sea near the area close to shore, especially in the northern Barlow 1998, Mallonee 1991) were used of planned activities (Quakenbush et al. to calculate and average open-water Chukchi Sea. 2010). However, tagged whales did The estimate of the July–August open- density of 0.0253 gray whales/km2 water bowhead whale density in the spend a considerable amount of time in (Table 6–1 in Shell’s IHA application). Chukchi Sea was calculated from the the north-central Chukchi Sea in 2012, The highest density from the survey three bowhead sightings (3 individuals) despite ongoing industrial activities in periods reported in Clarke and Ferguson and 22,154 km of survey effort in waters the region (ADFG 2012). Clarke and (in prep, cited in Shell 2014) and Clarke 36–50 m deep in the Chukchi Sea Ferguson (in prep, cited in Shell 2014) et al. (2012, 2013) was 0.0268 gray during July–August reported in Clarke and Clarke et al. (2012, 2013) reported whales/km2 in 2012 and this was used and Ferguson (in prep, cited in Shell 72 sightings (86 individuals) during as the maximum open-water density. 2014) and Clarke et al. (2012, 2013). The 22,255 km of on-transect aerial survey Gray whales are not commonly mean group size from those sightings effort in waters 36–50 m deep in 2008– associated with sea ice, but may be was 1. The group size value, along with 2012, the majority of which (53 present near it, so the same densities a f(0) value of 2 and a g(0) value of 0.07, sightings) were recorded in 2012. The were used for ice-margin habitat as were both from Thomas et al. (2002) were mean group size of the 72 sightings was derived for open-water habitat during used to estimate a summer density of 1.2. The same f(0) and g(0) values that both seasons. Densities from vessel 0.0019 bowheads/km2 (Table 6–1 in were used for the summer estimates based surveys in the Chukchi Sea Shell’s IHA application). The two above were used for the fall estimates during non-seismic periods and sightings recorded during 4,209 km of resulting in an average September– locations in July–August of 2006–2010 survey effort in 2011 (Clarke et al. 2012) October estimate of 0.0552 bowheads/ (Hartin et al. 2013) ranged from 0.0008/ produced the highest annual bowhead km2 (Table 6–2 in Shell’s IHA km2 to 0.0085/km2 with a maximum 95 density during July–August (0.0068 application). The highest density form percent CI of 0.0353 km2. 2 bowheads/km ) which was used as the the survey periods (0.1320 bowheads/ In the fall, gray whales may be maximum open-water density (Table 6– km2; in 2012) was used as the maximum dispersed more widely through the northern Chukchi Sea (Moore et al. 1 in Shell’s IHA application). Bowheads open-water density during the fall 2000), but overall densities are likely to are not expected to be encountered in period. Moore et al. (2000) found that be decreasing as the whales begin higher densities near ice in the summer bowheads were detected more often (Moore et al. 2000), so the same density migrating south. A density calculated than expected in association with ice in estimates have been used for open-water from effort and sightings (46 sightings the Chukchi Sea in September–October, and ice-margin habitats. Densities from [64 individuals] during 22,255 km of on- so the ice-margin densities that are used vessel based surveys in the Chukchi Sea transect effort) in water 36–50 m deep during non-seismic periods and are twice the open-water densities. during September–October reported by locations in July–August of 2006–2010 Densities from vessel based surveys in Clarke and Ferguson (in prep, cited in (Hartin et al. 2013) ranged from 0.0002– the Chukchi Sea during non-seismic Shell 2014) and Clarke et al. (2012, 0.0008/km2 with a maximum 95% CI of periods and locations in September– 2013) was used as the average estimate 0.0085/km2. This suggests the densities November of 2006–2010 (Hartin et al. for the Chukchi Sea during the fall used in the calculations and shown in 2013) ranged from 0.0003 to 0.0052/km2 period (0.0118 gray whales/km2; Table Table 6–1 in Shell’s IHA application are with a maximum 95 percent CI of 0.051/ 6–2 in Shell’s IHA application). The similar to what are likely to be observed km2. This suggests the densities used in corresponding group size value of 1.39, from vessels near the area of planned the calculations and shown in Table 6– along with the same f(0) and g(0) values exploration drilling activities. 2 in Shell’s IHA application are described above were used in the During the fall, bowhead whales that somewhat higher than are likely to be calculation. The maximum density from summered in the Beaufort Sea and observed from vessels near the area of the survey periods (0.0248 gray whales/ Amundsen Gulf migrate west and south planned exploration drilling activities. km2) was reported in 2011 (Clarke et al.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11763

2012) and used as the maximum fall sightings; George and Suydam (1998) densities during both seasons for both open-water density (Table 6–2 in Shell’s reported killer whales; Brueggeman et species. The fall density of ringed seals IHA application). Densities from vessel al. (1990), Hartin et al. (2013), Clarke et in the offshore Chukchi Sea has been based surveys in the Chukchi Sea al. (2012, 2013), and Reider et al. (2013) estimated as 2/3 the summer densities during non-seismic periods and reported minke whales; and Clarke et al. because ringed seals begin to reoccupy locations in September–November of (2011, 2013) and Hartin et al. (2013) nearshore fast ice areas as it forms in the 2006–2010 (Hartin et al. 2013) ranged reported fin whales. With regard to fall. Bearded seals may also begin to from 0.0/km2 to 0.0044/km2 with a humpback and fin whales, NMFS (2013) leave the Chukchi Sea in the fall, but maximum 95% CI of 0.0335 km2. recently concluded these whales occur less is known about their movement in very low numbers in the project area, patterns so fall densities were left (d) Harbor Porpoises but may be regular visitors. unchanged from summer densities. For Harbor Porpoise densities were Of these uncommon cetacean species, comparison, the ringed seal density estimated from industry data collected minke whale has the potential to be the estimates calculated from data collected during 2006–2010 activities in the most common based on recent industry during summer 2006–2010 industry Chukchi Sea. Prior to 2006, no reliable surveys. Reider et al. (2013) reported 13 operations ranged from 0.0138/km2 to estimates were available for the Chukchi minke whale sightings in the Chukchi 0.0464/km2 with a maximum 95 percent Sea and harbor porpoise presence was Sea in 2013 during Shell’s marine CI of 0.1581/km2 (Hartin et al. 2013). expected to be very low and limited to survey program. All but one minke nearshore regions. Observers on whale sighting in 2013, however, were (b) Spotted Seals industry vessels in 2006–2010, however, observed in nearshore areas despite only Little information on spotted seal recorded sightings throughout the minimal monitoring effort in nearshore densities in offshore areas of the Chukchi Sea during the summer and areas compared to more offshore Chukchi Sea is available. Spotted seal early fall months. Density estimates locations near the Burger prospect densities in the summer were estimated from 2006–2010 observations during (Reider et al. 2013). by multiplying the ringed seal densities non-seismic periods and locations in by 0.02. This was based on the ratio of (2) Pinnipeds July-August ranged from 0.0013/km2 to the estimated Chukchi populations of 0.0029/km2 with a maximum 95% CI of Three species of pinnipeds under the two species. Chukchi Sea spotted 0.0137/km2 (Hartin et al. 2013). The NMFS jurisdiction are likely to be seal abundance was estimated by average density from the summer season encountered in the Chukchi Sea during assuming that 8% of the Alaskan of those three years (0.0022/km2) was Shell’s planned exploration drilling population of spotted seals is present in used as the average open-water density program: Ringed seal, bearded seal, and the Chukchi Sea during the summer and estimate while the high value (0.0029/ spotted seal. Ringed and bearded seals fall (Rugh et al. 1997), the Alaskan km2) was used as the maximum are associated with both the ice margin population of spotted seals is 59,214 estimate (Table 6–1 in Shell’s IHA and the nearshore area. The ice margin (Allen and Angliss 2012), and that the application). Harbor porpoise are not is considered preferred habitat (as population of ringed seals in the expected to be present in higher compared to the nearshore areas) for Alaskan Chukchi Sea is ∼208,000 numbers near ice, so the open-water ringed and bearded seals during most animals (Bengtson et al. 2005). In the densities were used for ice-margin seasons. Spotted seals are often fall, spotted seals show increased use of habitat in both seasons. Harbor porpoise considered to be predominantly a coastal haulouts so densities were densities recorded during industry coastal species except in the spring estimated to be 2/3 of the summer operations in the fall months of 2006– when they may be found in the southern densities. 2010 were slightly lower and ranged margin of the retreating sea ice. from 0.0/km2 to 0.0044/km2 with a However, satellite tagging has shown (c) Ribbon Seals maximum 95% CI of 0.0275/km2. The that they sometimes undertake long Four ribbon seal sightings were average of those years (0.0021/km2) was excursions into offshore waters during reported during industry vessel again used as the average density summer (Lowry et al. 1994, 1998). operations in the Chukchi Sea in 2006– estimate and the high value (0.0044/ Ribbon seals have been reported in very 2010 (Hartin et al. 2013). The resulting km2) was used as the maximum small numbers within the Chukchi Sea density estimate of 0.0007/km2 was estimate (Table 6–2 in Shell’s IHA by observers on industry vessels used as the average density and 4 times application). (Patterson et al. 2007, Hartin et al. that was used as the maximum for both 2013). (e) Other Whales seasons and habitat zones. The remaining five cetacean species (a) Ringed and Bearded Seals Individual Sound Sources and Level B that could be encountered in the Ringed seal and bearded seals Radii Chukchi Sea during Shell’s planned ‘‘average’’ and ‘‘maximum’’ summer ice- The assumed start date of Shell’s exploration drilling program include the margin densities were available in exploration drilling program in the humpback whale, killer whale, minke Bengtson et al. (2005) from spring Chukchi Sea using the drilling units whale, and fin whale. Although there is surveys in the offshore pack ice zone Discoverer and Polar Pioneer with evidence of the occasional occurrence of (zone 12P) of the northern Chukchi Sea. associated support vessels is 4 July. these five cetacean species in the However, corrections for bearded seal Shell may conduct exploration drilling Chukchi Sea, it is unlikely that more availability, g(0), based on haulout and activities at up to four drill sites at the than a few individuals will be diving patterns were not available. prospect known as Burger. Drilling encountered during the planned Densities of ringed and bearded seals in activities are expected to be conducted exploration drilling program and open water are expected to be somewhat through approximately 31 October 2015. therefore minimum densities have been lower in the summer when preferred Previous IHA applications for offshore assigned to these species (Tables 6–1 pack ice habitat may still be present in Arctic exploration programs estimated and 6–2 in Shell’s IHA application). the Chukchi Sea. Average and areas potentially ensonified to ≥120 or Clarke et al. (2011, 2013) and Hartin et maximum open-water densities have ≥160 dB re 1 mPa rms independently for al. (2013) reported humpback whale been estimated as 3/4 of the ice margin each continuous or pulsed sound

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11764 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

source, respectively (e.g., drilling, tending to a drilling unit, (3) MLC ‘‘adjusted’’ values that were calculated ZVSP, etc.). The primary method used construction, (4) anchor handling in by adding the ‘‘safety factor’’ of 1.3 dB in this IHA application for estimating support of mooring a drilling unit, and re 1 mPa rms to each source. The areas ensonified to continuous sound (5) ice management activities. The adjusted source levels were then used in levels ≥120 dB re 1 mPa rms by drilling- information used to generate sound sound propagation modeling of activity related activities involved sound level characteristics for each continuous scenarios to estimate ensonified areas propagation modeling of a variety of sound source is summarized below to and associated marine mammal scenarios consisting of multiple, provide background on the model exposure estimates. Additional details concurrently-operating sound sources. inputs. A ‘‘safety factor’’ of 1.3 dB re 1 for each of the continuous sound These ‘‘activity scenarios’’ consider mPa rms was added to the source level sources presented in Table 2 are additive acoustic effects from multiple for each sound source prior to modeling discussed below. sound sources at nearby locations, and activity scenarios to account for more closely capture the nature of a variability across the project area The pulsed sound sources used for dynamic acoustic environment where associated with received levels at sound propagation modeling of activity numerous activities are taking place different depths, geoacoustical scenarios consisted of two small airgun simultaneously. The area ensonified to properties, and sound-speed profiles. arrays proposed for ZVSP activities. All ≥160 dB re 1 mPa rms from ZVSP, a The addition of the 1.3 dB re 1 mPa rms possible array configurations and pulsed sound source, was treated safety factor to source levels resulted in operating depths were modeled to independently from the activity an approximate 20 percent increase in identify the arrangement with the scenarios for continuous sound sources. the distance to the 120 dB re 1 mPa rms greatest sound propagation The continuous sound sources used threshold for each continuous source. characteristics. The resulting ≥160 dB re for sound propagation modeling of Table 2 summarizes the 120 dB re 1 1 mPa rms radius was multiplied by 1.5 activity scenarios included (1) drilling mPa rms radii for individual sound as a conservative measure prior to unit and drilling sounds, (2) supply and sources, both the ‘‘original’’ radii as estimating exposed areas, which is drilling support vessels using DP when measured in the field, and the discussed in greater detail below.

TABLE 2—MEASURED AND ADJUSTED 120 dB re 1 μPa RADII FOR INDIVIDUAL, CONTINUOUS SOUND SOURCES

Radii of 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) isopleth (meters) Activity/continuous sound source With 1.3 dB Original correction measurement factor

Drilling at 1 site ...... 1,500 1,800 Vessel in DP ...... 4,500 5,500 Mudline cellar construction at 1 site ...... 8,200 9,300 Anchor handling at 1 site (assumed to be 2 vessels) ...... 19,000 22,000 Single vessel ice management ...... 9,600 11,000

Two sound sources have been volume. Thus, the total sound energy exploration drilling program in the proposed by Shell for the ZVSP surveys from three airguns is larger than the Chukchi Sea. in 2015. The first is a small airgun array total energy from two airguns, even As noted above, previous IHA that consists of three 150 in3 (2,458 though the total volume is smaller. applications for Arctic offshore cm3) airguns for a total volume of 450 Second, larger volume airguns emit exploration programs estimated areas in3 (7,374 cm3). The second ZVSP more low-frequency sound energy than potentially ensonified to continuous sound source consists of two 250 in3 smaller volume airguns, and low- sound levels ≥120 dB re 1 mPa rms (4,097 cm3) airguns with a total volume frequency airgun sound energy is independently for each sound source. of 500 in3 (8,194 cm3). Sound footprints strongly attenuated by interaction with This method was appropriate for for each of the two proposed ZVSP the surface reflection. Thus, the sound assessing a small number of continuous airgun array configurations were energy for the larger-volume array sound sources that did not consistently estimated using JASCO Applied experiences more reduction and results overlap in time and space. However, Sciences’ MONM. The model results in shorter sound threshold radii. many of the continuous sound sources were maximized over all water depths described above will operate from 9.8 to 23 ft (3 to 7 m) to yield The estimated 95th percentile concurrently at one or more nearby precautionary sound level isopleths as a distances to the following thresholds for locations in 2015 during Shell’s planned 3 ≥ function of range and direction from the the 450 in airgun array were: 190 dB exploration drilling program in the ≥ source. The 450 in3 airgun array at a re 1 mPa rms = 170 m, 180 dB re 1 mPa Chukchi Sea. It is therefore appropriate ≥ source depth of 7 m yielded the rms = 920 m, and 160 dB re 1 mPa rms to consider the concurrent operation of maximum ranges to the ≥190, ≥180, and = 7,970 m. The ≥160 dB re 1 mPa rms numerous sound sources and the ≥160 dB re 1 mPa rms isopleths. distance was multiplied by 1.5 for a additive acoustic effects from combined There are two reasons that the radii distance of 11,960 m. This radius was sound fields when estimating areas for the 450 in3 airgun array are larger used for estimating areas ensonified by potentially exposed to levels ≥120 dB re than those for the 500 in3 array. First, pulsed sounds to ≥160 dB re 1 mPa rms 1 mPa rms. the sound energy does not scale linearly during a single ZVSP survey. ZVSP A range of potential ‘‘activity with the airgun volume, rather it is surveys may occur at up to two different scenarios’’ was derived from a realistic proportional to the cube root of the drill sites during Shell’s planned 2015 operational timeline by considering the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11765

various combinations of different total area ensonified by such a scenario. In other words, by binning all potential continuous sound sources that may For these reasons, various combinations scenarios into the most conservative operate at the same time at one or more of similar activities were grouped into representative scenario, the largest locations. The total number of possible representative activity scenarios shown possible ensonified areas for all activity combinations from all sources at in Table 3. Ensonified areas for these activities were identified for analysis. A up to four different drill sites would not representative activity scenarios were total of nine representative activity be practical to assess or present in a estimated through sound propagation scenarios were modeled to estimate meaningful way. Additionally, modeling. Activity scenarios were areas exposed to continuous sounds combinations such as concurrent modeled for different drill site ≥120 dB re 1 mPa rms for Shell’s drilling and anchor handling in close combinations and, as a conservative planned 2015 exploration drilling proximity do not add meaning to the measure, the locations corresponding to program in the Chukchi Sea (Table 3). analysis given the negligible the largest ensonified area were chosen A tenth scenario was included for the contribution of drilling sounds to the to represent the given activity scenario. ZVSP activities.

TABLE 3—SOUND PROPAGATION MODELING RESULTS OF REPRESENTATIVE DRILLING RELATED ACTIVITY SCENARIOS AND ESTIMATES OF THE TOTAL AREA POTENTIALLY ENSONIFIED ABOVE THRESHOLD LEVELS AT THE BURGER PROSPECT IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA, DURING SHELL’S PROPOSED 2015 EXPLORATION DRILLING PROGRAM

Area potentially ensonified Threshold level (km2) Activity scenario description (dB re 1 μPa rms) Summer Fall

Drilling at 1 site ...... 120 10.2 10.2 Drilling and DP vessel at 1 site ...... 120 111.8 111.8 Drilling and DP vessel (1 site) + drilling and DP vessel (2nd site) ...... 120 295.5 295.5 Mudline cellar construction at 2 different sites ...... 120 575.5 575.5 Anchor handling at 1 site ...... 120 1,534.9 1,534.9 Drilling and DP vessel at 1 site + anchor handling at 2nd site ...... 120 1,759.2 1,759.2 Mudline cellar construction at 2 different sites + anchor handling at 3rd site ...... 120 2,046.3 2,046.3 Two-vessel ice management ...... 120 937.4 937.4 Four-vessel ice management ...... 120 1,926.0 1,926.0 ZVSP at 2 different sites ...... 160 0.0 898.0

Potential Number of ‘‘Takes by the remaining 80% of the area. Since The following sections present a range Harassment’’ icebreaking activities would only occur of exposure estimates for bowhead within ice-margin habitat, the entire whales and ringed seals. Estimates were This section provides estimates of the area potentially ensonified by generated based on an evaluation of the number of individuals potentially icebreaking activities has been best available science and a exposed to continuous sound levels ≥ multiplied by the ice-margin densities consideration of the assumptions 120 dB re 1 mPa rms from exploration in both seasons. surrounding avoidance behavior and the drilling related activities and pulsed ≥ Estimates of the numbers of marine frequency of turnover. In addition to sound levels 160 dB re 1 mPa rms by mammals potentially exposed to demonstrating the sensitivity of ZVSP activities. The estimates are based continuous sounds ≥120 dB re 1 mPa exposure estimates to variable on a consideration of the number of rms or pulsed sounds ≥160 dB re 1 mPa assumptions, the wide range of marine mammals that might be affected rms are based on assumptions that estimates is more informative for by operations in the Chukchi Sea during include upward scaling of source levels assessing negligible impact compared to 2015 and the anticipated area exposed for all sound sources, no avoidance of a single estimated value with a high to those sound levels. activities/sounds by individual marine degree of uncertainty. To account for different densities in mammals, and 100% turnover of It is difficult to determine an different habitats, Shell has assumed individuals in ensonified areas every 24 appropriate, precise average turnover that more ice is likely to be present in hours (except for bowhead whales, as time for a population of animals in a the area of operations during the July– discussed below). NMFS considers that particular area of the Chukchi Sea. August period than in the September– these assumptions are overly Reasons for this include differences in October period, so summer ice-margin conservative, especially for non- residency time for migratory and non- densities have been applied to 50% of migratory species/periods and for migratory species, changes in the area that may be exposed to sounds cetaceans in particular, which are distribution of food and other factors from exploration drilling activities in known to avoid anthropogenic activities such as behavior that influence animal those months. Open water densities in and associated sounds at varying movement, variation among individuals the summer were applied to the distances depending on the context in of the same species, etc. Complete remaining 50% of the area. which activities and sounds are turnover of individual bowhead whales Less ice is likely to be present during encountered (Koski and Miller 2009; in the project area each 24-hour period the September–October period than in Moore 2000; Moore et al. 2000; Treacy may occur during fall migration when the July–August period, so fall ice- et al. 2006). Although we recognize bowheads are traveling through the area. margin densities have been applied to these assumptions may be overly Even during this fall period, bowheads only 20% of the area that may be conservative, it is difficult to scale often move in pulses with one to several exposed to sounds from exploration variables in a more precise fashion until days between major pulses of whales drilling activities in those months. Fall recent evidence can be incorporated (Miller et al. 2002). Gaps between open-water densities were applied to into newer estimation methods. groups of whales can probably be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11766 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

accounted for partially by bowhead source, coupled with an individual’s ≥160 dB re 1 mPa rms. The largest whales stopping to feed behavioral state (e.g., feeding vs ensonified areas during Shell’s 2012 opportunistically when food is traveling) among other contextual exploration drilling program were encountered. The extent of feeding by variables, as opposed to received sound produced by mudline cellar bowhead whales during fall migration level alone, strongly influences the construction, ice management, and across the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas degree to which an individual whale anchor handling (JASCO Applied varies greatly from year to year based on demonstrates aversion or other Sciences and Greeneridge Sciences the location and abundance of prey behaviors (reviewed in Richardson et al. 2014). Only anchor handling is expected (Shelden and Mocklin 2013). For 1995b; Gordon et al. 2004; Koski and to result in the lateral propagation of example, if a turnover rate of 48 hours Miller 2009). continuous sound levels ≥120 dB re 1 to account for intermittent periods of Several historical studies provide mPa rms to distances of 20 km or greater migrating and feeding individuals is valuable information on the distribution from the source. assumed, then the number of bowhead and behavior of bowhead whales By assuming half of the individual whale being exposed would be reduced relative to drilling activities in the bowhead whales would avoid areas accordingly by 50%. Due to changes in Alaskan Arctic offshore. One is a 1986 with sounds at or above Level B the turnover rate across time, a study by Shell at Hammerhead and thresholds, the exposure estimate would Corona prospects (Davis 1987) and conservative turnover rate of 24 hours be reduced accordingly by 50% even if another is an analysis by Schick and has been selected to estimate the 100% turnover of migrating whales was Urban (2000) of 1993 aerial survey data number of bowhead whales exposed. still assumed to take place every 24 collected by Coastal Offshore and hours. Taking into consideration what is During the summer, relatively few Pacific Corporation. Both studies known from studies documenting bowhead or beluga whales are present suggest that few whales approached temporary diversion around drilling in the Chukchi Sea and in most cases, within ∼18 km of an offshore drilling activities, and conservative assumptions given that the operations area is not operation in the Beaufort Sea. Davis with regards to turnover rates, NMFS known to be a critical feeding area (Citta (1987) reported that the surfacing and considers the conservative estimate et al. 2014; Allen and Angliss 2014), respiration variables that are often used whales would be likely to simply avoid as indicators of behavioral disturbance associated with a 24 hour turnover and the area of operations (Schick and seemed normal when whales were >18.5 50% avoidance to be the most Urban 2000; Richardson et al. 1995a). km from the active drill site and as they reasonable estimate of individual Similarly, during migration many circumnavigated the drilling operation. exposures. whales would likely travel around the The Schick and Urban (2000) study Table 4 presents the exposure area (i.e., avoid it) as it is not known to found whales as close as 18.5–20.3 km estimates for Shell’s proposed 2015 be important habitat for either in all directions around the active exploration drilling program in the bowheads or belugas during any portion operation, suggesting that whales that Chukchi Sea. The table also summarizes of the year (Citta et al. 2014; Allen and had diverted returned to their normal abundance estimates for each species Angliss 2014). There is a large body of migration routes shortly after passing and the corresponding percent of each evidence indicating that bowhead the operation. population that may be exposed to whales avoid anthropogenic activities If bowhead whales avoid drilling and continuous sounds ≥120 dB re 1 mPa and associated underwater sounds related support activities at distances of rms or pulsed sounds ≥160 dB re 1 mPa depending on the context in which approximately 20 km in 2015, as was rms. With the exception of the exposure these activities are encountered (LGL et noted consistently by Davis (1987) and estimate for bowhead whales described al. 2014; Koski and Miller 2009; Moore Schick and Urban (2002), this would above, estimates for all other species 2000; Moore et al. 2000; Treacy et al. preclude exposure of the vast majority assumed 100% daily turnover and no 2006). Increasing evidence suggests that of individuals to continuous sounds avoidance of activities or ensonified proximity to an activity or sound ≥120 dB re 1 mPa rms or pulsed sounds areas.

TABLE 4—THE TOTAL NUMBER OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES OF MARINE MAMMALS TO SOUND LEVELS ≥120 dB re 1 μPa rms OR ≥160 dB re 1 μPa rms DURING THE SHELL’S PROPOSED DRILLING ACTIVITIES IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALAS- KA, 2015 [Estimates are also shown as a percent of each population]

Number Percent Species Abundance potential estimated exposure population

Beluga ...... 42,968 974 2.3 Killer whale ...... 2,084 14 0.8 Harbor porpoise ...... 48,215 294 0.6 Bowhead whale ...... 19,534 2,582 13.2 Fin whale ...... 1,652 14 0.8 Gray whale ...... 19,126 2,581 13.5 Humpback whale ...... 20,800 14 0.1 Minke whale ...... 810 41 5.1 Bearded seal ...... 155,000 1,722 1.1 Ribbon seal ...... 49,000 96 0.2 Ringed seal ...... 300,000 50,433 16.8 Spotted seal ...... 141,479 1,007 0.7

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:40 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11767

In summary, several precautionary adverse effects on annual rates of Therefore, if bowhead whales stop to methods were applied when calculating recruitment or survival (i.e., population- feed near Point Barrow during Shell’s exposure estimates. These conservative level effects). An estimate of the number proposed operations, the animals would methods and related considerations of Level B harassment takes, alone, is not be exposed to continuous sounds include: not enough information on which to from the drilling units or icebreaker • Application of a 1.3 dB re 1 mPa rms base an impact determination. In above 120 dB or to impulsive sounds safety factor to the source level of each addition to considering estimates of the from the airguns above 160 dB, as those continuous sound source prior to sound number of marine mammals that might sound levels only propagate 1.8 km, 11 propagation modeling of areas exposed be ‘‘taken’’ through behavioral km, and 11.9 km, respectively, which to Level B thresholds; harassment, NMFS must consider other includes the inflation factor. Therefore, • Binning of similar activity scenarios factors, such as the likely nature of any sounds from the operations would not into a representative scenario, each of responses (their intensity, duration, reach the feeding grounds near Point which reflected the largest exposed area etc.), the context of any responses Barrow. for a related group of activities; (critical reproductive time or location, Gray whales occur in the northeastern • Modeling numerous iterations of migration, etc.), as well as the number Chukchi Sea during the summer and each activity scenario at different drill and nature of estimated Level A early fall to feed. Hanna Shoals, an area site locations to identify the spatial harassment takes, the number of northeast of Shell’s proposed drill sites, arrangement with the largest exposed estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, is a common gray whale feeding ground. area for each; and the status of the species. This feeding ground lies outside of the • Assuming 100 percent daily No injuries or mortalities are 120-dB and 160-dB ensonified areas turnover of populations, which likely anticipated to occur as a result of Shell’s from Shell’s activities. While some overestimates the number of different proposed Chukchi Sea exploratory individuals may swim through the area individuals that would be exposed, drilling program, and none are proposed of active drilling, it is not anticipated to especially during non-migratory to be authorized. Injury, serious injury, interfere with their feeding at Hanna periods; or mortality could occur if there were a Shoals or other Chukchi Sea feeding • Expected marine mammal densities large or very large oil spill. However, as grounds. Other cetacean species are assume no avoidance of areas exposed discussed previously in this document, much rarer in the proposed project area. to Level B thresholds (with the the likelihood of a spill is extremely The exposure of cetaceans to sounds exception of bowhead whale, for which remote. Shell has implemented many produced by exploratory drilling 50% of individuals were assumed to design and operational standards to operations (i.e., drilling units, ice demonstrate avoidance behavior); and mitigate the potential for an oil spill of management/icebreaking, and airgun • Density estimates for some any size. NMFS does not propose to operations) is not expected to result in cetaceans include nearshore areas where authorize take from an oil spill, as it is more than Level B harassment. more individuals would be expected to not part of the specified activity. Few seals are expected to occur in the occur than in the offshore Burger Additionally, animals in the area are not proposed project area, as several of the Prospect area (e.g., gray whales). expected to incur hearing impairment species prefer more nearshore waters. Additionally, post-season estimates of (i.e., TTS or PTS) or non-auditory Additionally, as stated previously in the number of marine mammals physiological effects. Instead, any this document, pinnipeds appear to be exposed to Level B thresholds per Shell impact that could result from Shell’s more tolerant of anthropogenic sound, 90-Day Reports from the 2012 IHA activities is most likely to be behavioral especially at lower received levels, than consistently support the methods used harassment and is expected to be of other marine mammals, such as in Shell’s IHA applications as limited duration. Although it is possible mysticetes. Shell’s proposed activities precautionary. Most recently, exposure that some individuals may be exposed would occur at a time of year when the estimates reported by Reider et al. to sounds from drilling operations more ice seal species found in the region are (2013) from Shell’s 2012 exploration than once, during the migratory periods not molting, breeding, or pupping. activities in the Chukchi Sea were it is less likely that this will occur since Therefore, these important life functions considerably lower than those requested animals will continue to move across would not be impacted by Shell’s in Shell’s 2012 IHA application. The the Chukchi Sea towards their wintering proposed activities. The exposure of following summary of the numbers of grounds. pinnipeds to sounds produced by Bowhead and beluga whales are less Shell’s proposed exploratory drilling cetaceans and pinnipeds that may be likely to occur in the proposed project operations in the Chukchi Sea is not exposed to sounds above Level B area in July and August, as they are expected to result in more than Level B thresholds is best interpreted as found mostly in the Canadian Beaufort harassment of the affected species or conservatively high, particularly the Sea at this time. The animals are more stock. larger value for each species that likely to occur later in the season (mid- Of the 12 marine mammal species or assumes a new population of September through October), as they stocks likely to occur in the proposed individuals each day. head west towards Russia or south drilling area, four are listed as Analysis and Preliminary towards the Bering Sea. Additionally, endangered under the ESA: the Determinations while bowhead whale tagging studies bowhead, humpback, fin whales, and revealed that animals occurred in the LS ringed seal. All four species are also Negligible Impact 193 area, a higher percentage of animals designated as ‘‘depleted’’ under the Negligible impact is ‘‘an impact were found outside of the LS 193 area MMPA. Despite these designations, the resulting from the specified activity that in the fall (Quakenbush et al., 2010). Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock of cannot be reasonably expected to, and is Bowhead whales are not known to feed bowheads has been increasing at a rate not reasonably likely to, adversely affect in areas near Shell’s leases in the of 3.4% annually for nearly a decade the species or stock through effects on Chukchi Sea. The closest primary (Allen and Angliss, 2011), even in the annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ feeding ground is near Point Barrow, face of ongoing industrial activity. (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact which is more than 150 mi (241 km) Additionally, during the 2001 census, finding is based on the lack of likely east of Shell’s Burger prospect. 121 calves were counted, which was the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11768 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

highest yet recorded. The calf count Small Numbers rural Alaska, subsistence activities are provides corroborating evidence for a The estimated takes proposed to be often central to many aspects of human healthy and increasing population authorized represent less than 1% of the existence, including patterns of family (Allen and Angliss, 2011). An annual affected population or stock for 6 of the life, artistic expression, and community increase of 4.8% was estimated for the species and less than 5.5% for three religious and celebratory activities. period 1987–2003 for North Pacific fin additional species. The estimated takes Additionally, the animals taken for whales. While this estimate is consistent for bowhead and gray whales and for subsistence provide a significant portion with growth estimates for other large ringed seals are 13.2%, 13.5%, and of the food that will last the community whale populations, it should be used 16.8%, respectively. These estimates throughout the year. The main species with caution due to uncertainties in the represent the percentage of each species that are hunted include bowhead and initial population estimate and about or stock that could be taken by Level B beluga whales, ringed, spotted, and population stock structure in the area behavioral harassment if each animal is bearded seals. The importance of each (Allen and Angliss, 2011). Zeribini et al. taken only once. of these species varies among the (2006, cited in Allen and Angliss, 2011) The estimated take numbers are likely communities and is largely based on noted an increase of 6.6% for the somewhat of an overestimate for several availability. Central North Pacific stock of humpback reasons. First, an application of a 1.3 dB The subsistence communities in the whales in Alaska waters. Certain stocks safety factor to the source level of each Chukchi Sea that have the potential to or populations of gray and beluga continuous sound source prior to sound be impacted by Shell’s offshore drilling whales and spotted seals are listed as propagation modeling of areas exposed program include Point Hope, Point Lay, endangered or are proposed for listing to Level B thresholds, which make the Wainwright, Barrow, and possibly under the ESA; however, none of those effective zones for take calculation Kotzebue and Kivalina (however, these stocks or populations occur in the larger than they likely would be. In two communities are much farther to proposed activity area. Ringed seals addition, Shell applied binning of the south of the proposed project area). were recently listed under the ESA as similar activity scenarios into a (1) Bowhead Whales threatened species, and are considered representative scenario, each of which Sound energy and general activity depleted under the MMPA. On July 25, reflected the largest exposed area for a associated with drilling and operation of 2014, the U.S. District Court for the related group of activities. Further, the vessels and aircraft have the potential to District of Alaska vacated NMFS’ rule take estimates assume 100% daily temporarily affect the behavior of listing the Beringia bearded seal DPS as turnover of populations, which likely bowhead whales. Monitoring studies threatened and remanded the rule to overestimates the number of different NMFS to correct the deficiencies (Davis 1987, Brewer et al. 1993, Hall et individuals that would be exposed, al. 1994) have documented temporary identified in the opinion. None of the especially during non-migratory other species that may occur in the diversions in the swim path of migrating periods. In addition, the take estimates bowheads near drill sites; however, the project area is listed as threatened or assume no avoidance of marine endangered under the ESA or whales have generally been observed to mammals in areas exposed to Level B resume their initial migratory route designated as depleted under the thresholds (with the exception of MMPA. There is currently no within a distance of 6–20 mi (10–32 bowhead whale, for which 50% of km). Drilling noise has not been shown established critical habitat in the individuals were assumed to proposed project area for any of these 12 to block or impede migration even in demonstrate avoidance behavior). narrow ice leads (Davis 1987, species. Finally, density estimates for some Potential impacts to marine mammal Richardson et al. 1991). cetaceans include nearshore areas where habitat were discussed previously in Behavioral effects on bowhead whales more individuals would be expected to this document (see the ‘‘Anticipated from sound energy produced by drilling, occur than in the offshore Burger Effects on Habitat’’ section). Although such as avoidance, deflection, and Prospect area (e.g., gray whales). changes in surface/dive ratios, have some disturbance is possible to food Based on the analysis contained sources of marine mammals, the generally been found to be limited to herein of the likely effects of the areas around the drill site that are impacts are anticipated to be minor. specified activity on marine mammals Based on the vast size of the Arctic ensonified to >160 dB re 1 mPa rms, and their habitat, and taking into Ocean where feeding by marine although effects have infrequently been consideration the implementation of the mammals occurs versus the localized observed out as far as areas ensonified mitigation and monitoring measures, area of the drilling program, any missed to 120 dB re 1 mPa rms. Ensonification NMFS preliminarily finds that small feeding opportunities in the direct by drilling to levels >120 dB re 1 mPa numbers of marine mammals will be project area would be of little rms will be limited to areas within taken relative to the populations of the consequence, as marine mammals about 0.93 mi (1.5 km) of either drilling affected species or stocks. would have access to other feeding units during Shell’s exploration drilling grounds. Impact on Availability of Affected program. Shell’s proposed drill sites are Based on the analysis contained Species or Stock for Taking for located more than 64 mi (103 km) from herein of the likely effects of the Subsistence Uses the Chukchi Sea coastline, whereas specified activity on marine mammals mapping of subsistence use areas and their habitat, and taking into Relevant Subsistence Uses indicates bowhead hunts are conducted consideration the implementation of the The disturbance and potential within about 30 mi (48 km) of shore; proposed monitoring and mitigation displacement of marine mammals by there is therefore little or no opportunity measures, NMFS preliminarily finds sounds from drilling activities are the for the proposed exploration drilling that the total marine mammal take from principal concerns related to activities to affect bowhead hunts. Shell’s proposed 2015 open-water subsistence use of the area. Subsistence Vessel traffic along planned travel exploration drilling program in the remains the basis for Alaska Native corridors between the drill sites and Chukchi Sea will have a negligible culture and community. Marine marine support facilities in Barrow and impact on the affected marine mammal mammals are legally hunted in Alaskan Wainwright would traverse some areas species or stocks. waters by coastal Alaska Natives. In used during bowhead harvests by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11769

Chukchi villages. Bowhead hunts by Liaisons, and Com Centers, will be there are no bowheads in the area. residents of Wainwright, Point Hope implemented to avoid any effects from Communal hunts for beluga are and Point Lay take place almost vessel traffic on fall whaling in the conducted along the coastal lagoon exclusively in the spring prior to the Chukchi Sea by Barrow and system later in July–August. date on which Shell would commence Wainwright. Belugas typically represent a much the proposed exploration drilling Aircraft traffic (helicopters and small greater proportion of the subsistence program. From 1984 through 2009, all fixed wing airplanes) between the drill harvest in Point Lay and Point Hope. bowhead harvests by these Chukchi Sea sites and facilities in Wainwright and Point Lay’s primary beluga hunt occurs villages occurred only between April 14 Barrow would also traverse these from mid-June through mid-July, but and June 24 (George and Tarpley 1986; subsistence areas. Flights between the can sometimes continue into August if George et al. 1987, 1988, 1990, 1992, drill sites and Wainwright or other early success is not sufficient. Point 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000; Philo et al. shoreline locations would take place Hope residents hunt beluga primarily in 1994; Suydam et al. 1995, 1996, 1997, after the date on which spring bowhead the lead system during the spring (late 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, whaling out of Point Hope, Point Lay, March to early June) bowhead hunt, but 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010), while Shell and Wainwright is typically finished for also in open water along the coastline in will not enter the Chukchi Sea prior to the year; however, Wainwright has July and August. Belugas are harvested July 1. However, fall whaling by some harvested bowheads in the fall since in coastal waters near these villages, of these Chukchi Sea villages has 2010 and aircraft may traverse areas generally within a few miles from shore. occurred since 2010 and is likely to sometimes utilized for these fall hunts. Shell’s proposed drill sites are located occur in the future, particularly if Aircraft overflights between the drill more than 60 mi (97 km) offshore, bowhead quotas are not completely sites and Barrow or other shoreline therefore proposed exploration drilling filled during the spring hunt, and fall locations could also occur over areas in the Burger Prospect would have no or weather is accommodating. A used by Barrow crews during fall minimal impacts on beluga hunts. Wainwright whaling crew harvested the whaling, but again, most fall whaling by Aircraft and vessel traffic between the first fall bowhead for these villages in 90 Barrow crews takes place to the east of drill sites and support facilities in years or more on October 7, 2010, and Barrow in the Beaufort Sea. The most Wainwright, and aircraft traffic between another in October of 2011 (Suydam et commonly observed reactions of the drill sites and air support facilities al. 2011, 2012, 2013). No bowhead bowheads to aircraft traffic are hasty in Barrow, would traverse areas that are whales were harvested during fall in dives, but changes in orientation, sometimes used for subsistence hunting 2012, but 3 were harvested by dispersal, and changes in activity are of belugas. Wainwright in fall 2013. sometimes noted. Such reactions could Disturbance associated with vessel potentially affect subsistence hunts if and aircraft traffic could therefore Barrow crews have traditionally the flights occurred near and at the same potentially affect beluga hunts. hunted bowheads during both spring time as the hunt, but Shell has However, all of the beluga hunt by and fall; however spring whaling by developed and proposes to implement a Barrow residents in the Chukchi Sea, Barrow crews is normally finished number of mitigation measures to avoid and much of the hunt by Wainwright before the date on which Shell such impacts. These mitigation residents, would likely be completed operations would commence. From measures include minimum flight before Shell activities would commence. 1984 through 2011 whales were altitudes, employment of SAs, and Com Additionally, vessel and aircraft traffic harvested in the spring by Barrow crews Centers. Twice-daily calls are held associated with Shell’s planned only between April 23 and June 15 during the exploration drilling program exploration drilling program will be (George and Tarpley 1986; George et al. and are attended by operations staff, restricted under normal conditions to 1987, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1995, 1998, logistics staff, and SAs. Vessel designated corridors that remain 1999, 2000; Philo et al. 1994; Suydam et movements and aircraft flights are onshore or proceed directly offshore al. 1995, 1996, 1997, 2001, 2002, 2003, adjusted as needed and planned in a thereby minimizing the amount of 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, manner that avoids potential impacts to traffic in coastal waters where beluga 2010, 2011, 2012, 2103). Fall whaling by bowhead whale hunts and other hunts take place. The designated vessel Barrow crews does take place during the subsistence activities. and aircraft traffic corridors do not time period when vessels associated traverse areas indicated in recent (2) Beluga Whale with Shell’s exploration drilling mapping as utilized by Point Lay or program would be in the Chukchi Sea. Beluga whales typically do not Point Hope for beluga hunts, and avoids From 1984 through 2011, whales were represent a large proportion of the important beluga hunting areas in harvested in the fall by Barrow crews subsistence harvests by weight in the Kasegaluk Lagoon that are used by between August 31 and October 30, communities of Wainwright and Wainwright. Shell has developed and indicating that there is potential for Barrow, the nearest communities to proposes to implement a number of vessel traffic to affect these hunts. Most Shell’s planned exploration drilling mitigation measures, e.g., PSOs on fall whaling by Barrow crews, however, program. Barrow residents hunt beluga board vessels, minimum flight altitudes, takes place east of Barrow along the in the spring (normally after the and the SA and Com Center programs, Beaufort Sea coast, therefore providing bowhead hunt) in leads between Point to ensure that there is no impact on the little opportunity for vessel traffic Barrow and Skull Cliffs in the Chukchi availability of the beluga whale as a associated with Shell’s exploration Sea, primarily in April–June and later in subsistence resource. drilling program to affect them. For the summer (July–August) on both sides example, Suydam et al. (2008) reported of the barrier island in Elson Lagoon/ (3) Pinnipeds that in the previous 35 years, Barrow Beaufort Sea (Minerals Management Seals are an important subsistence whaling crews harvested almost all their Service [MMS] 2008), but harvest rates resource and ringed seals make up the whales in the Beaufort Sea to the east of indicate the hunts are not frequent. bulk of the seal harvest. Most ringed and Point Barrow. Shell’s mitigation Wainwright residents hunt beluga in bearded seals are harvested in the measures, which include a system of April–June in the spring lead system, winter or in the spring before Shell’s Subsistence Advisors (SAs), Community but this hunt typically occurs only if exploration drilling program would

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11770 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

commence, but some harvest continues noise. Whales are more wary around the program for the summer of 2015. In during open water and could possibly hunters and tend to expose a much addition, the POC Addendum details be affected by Shell’s planned activities. smaller portion of their back when Shell’s communications and Spotted seals are also harvested during surfacing (which makes harvesting more consultations with local subsistence the summer. Most seals are harvested in difficult). Additionally, natives report communities concerning its planned coastal waters, with available maps of that bowheads exhibit angry behaviors exploration drilling program, potential recent and past subsistence use areas in the presence of seismic activity, such conflicts with subsistence activities, and indicating seal harvests have occurred as tail-slapping, which translate to means of resolving any such conflicts only within 30–40 mi (48–64 km) of the danger for nearby subsistence (50 CFR 18.128(d) and 50 CFR coastline. Shell’s planned drill sites are harvesters. Only limited seismic activity 216.104(a) (12) (i), (ii), (iv)). Shell has located more than 64 statute mi (103 is planned in the vicinity of the drill documented its contacts with the North km) offshore, so activities within the units in 2015. Slope subsistence communities, as well Burger Prospect, such as drilling, would Plan of Cooperation or Measures To as the substance of its communications have no impact on subsistence hunting Minimize Impacts to Subsistence Hunts with subsistence stakeholder groups. for seals. Helicopter traffic between land The POC Addendum report and the offshore exploration drilling Regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12) (Attachment C of the IHA application) operations could potentially disturb require IHA applicants for activities that provides a list of public meetings seals and, therefore, subsistence hunts take place in Arctic waters to provide a attended by Shell since 2012 to develop for seals, but any such effects would be Plan of Cooperation (POC) or the POC and the POC Addendum. The minor and temporary lasting only information that identifies what POC Addendum is updated through July minutes after the flight has passed due measures have been taken and/or will 2015, and includes sign-in sheets and to the small number of flights and the be taken to minimize adverse effects on presentation materials used at the POC the availability of marine mammals for altitude at which they typically fly, and meetings held in 2014 to present the subsistence purposes. the fact that most seal hunting is done 2015 Chukchi Sea exploration drilling during the winter and spring when the Shell has prepared and will implement a POC pursuant to BOEM information. Comment analysis tables exploration drilling program is not for numerous meetings held during operational. Mitigation measures to be Lease Sale Stipulation No. 5, which requires that all exploration operations 2014 summarize feedback from the implemented by Shell include communities on Shell’s 2015 minimum flight altitudes, employment be conducted in a manner that prevents unreasonable conflicts between oil and exploration drilling and planned of subsistence advisors in the villages, activities beginning in the summer of and operation of Com Centers. gas activities and the subsistence activities and resources of residents of 2015. Potential Impacts to Subsistence Uses the North Slope. This stipulation also The following mitigation measures, NMFS has defined ‘‘unmitigable requires adherence to USFWS and plans and programs, are integral to this adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as: NMFS regulations, which require an POC and were developed during Shell’s ‘‘an impact resulting from the specified operator to implement a POC to mitigate consultation with potentially affected activity: (1) That is likely to reduce the the potential for conflicts between the subsistence groups and communities. availability of the species to a level proposed activity and traditional These measures, plans, and programs to insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence activities (50 CFR monitor and mitigate potential impacts subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the 18.124(c)(4) and 50 CFR 216.104(a)(12)). to subsistence users and resources will marine mammals to abandon or avoid A POC was prepared and submitted be implemented by Shell during its hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing with the initial Chukchi Sea EP that was exploration drilling operations in the subsistence users; or (iii) Placing submitted to BOEM in May 2009, and Chukchi Sea. The mitigation measures physical barriers between the marine approved on 7 December 2009. Shell has adopted and will implement mammals and the subsistence hunters; Subsequent POC Addendums were during its Chukchi Sea exploration and (2) That cannot be sufficiently submitted in May 2011 with a revised drilling operations are listed and mitigated by other measures to increase Chukchi Sea EP and the IHA application discussed below. These mitigation the availability of marine mammals to for the 2012 exploration drilling measures reflect Shell’s experience allow subsistence needs to be met. program. For this IHA application, Shell conducting exploration activities in the Noise and general activity during has again updated the POC Addendum. Alaska Arctic OCS since the 1980s and Shell’s proposed drilling program have The POC Addendum has been updated its ongoing efforts to engage with local the potential to impact marine mammals to include documentation of meetings subsistence communities to better hunted by Native Alaskans. In the case undertaken to specifically gather understand their concerns and develop of cetaceans, the most common reaction feedback from stakeholder communities appropriate and effective mitigation to anthropogenic sounds (as noted on Shell’s implementation of the measures to address those concerns. previously in this document) is Chukchi Sea exploration drilling This most recent version of Shell’s avoidance of the ensonified area. In the program during 2012, plus inform and planned mitigation measures was case of bowhead whales, this often obtain their input regarding the presented to community leaders and means that the animals divert from their continuation of the program with the subsistence user groups starting in normal migratory path by several addition of a second drilling unit, January 2009 and has evolved since in kilometers. Helicopter activity also has additional vessels and aircraft. response to information learned during the potential to disturb cetaceans and The POC Addendum identifies the the consultation process. pinnipeds by causing them to vacate the measures that Shell has developed in To minimize any cultural or resource area. Additionally, general vessel consultation with North Slope impacts from its exploration operations, presence in the vicinity of traditional subsistence communities to minimize Shell will continue to implement the hunting areas could negatively impact a any adverse effects on the availability of following additional measures to ensure hunt. Native knowledge indicates that marine mammals for subsistence uses coordination of its activities with local bowhead whales become increasingly and will implement during its planned subsistence users to minimize further ‘‘skittish’’ in the presence of seismic Chukchi Sea exploration drilling the risk of impacting marine mammals

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11771

and interfering with the subsistence and early summer bowhead whale (ICAS), and the Native Village of hunt: hunting. Barrow, and presented information • The transit route for the drilling regarding the proposed activities to the (1) Communications unit(s) and drilling support fleets will North Slope Borough (NSB) and • Shell has developed a avoid known fragile ecosystems and the Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB) Communication Plan and will Ledyard Bay Critical Habitat Unit Assemblies, and NSB and NWAB implement this plan before initiating (LBCHU), and will include coordination Planning Commissions during 2014. In exploration drilling operations to through Com Centers. July 2014, Shell conducted POC coordinate activities with local • PSOs will be aboard the drilling meetings in Chukchi villages to present subsistence users, as well as Village unit(s) and transiting support vessels. information on the proposed 2015 Whaling Captains’ Associations, to • When within 900 ft (274 m) of drilling season. Shell has supplemented minimize the risk of interfering with whales, vessels will reduce speed, avoid the IHA application with a POC subsistence hunting activities, and keep separating members from a group and addendum to incorporate these POC current as to the timing and status of the avoid multiple changes of direction. visits. Throughout 2014 and 2015 Shell • bowhead whale hunt and other Vessel speed will be reduced during anticipates continued engagement with subsistence hunts. The Communication inclement weather conditions in order the marine mammal commissions and Plan includes procedures for to avoid collisions with marine committees active in the subsistence coordination with Com Centers to be mammals. harvests and marine mammal research. • located in coastal villages along the Shell will communicate and Shell continues to meet each year Chukchi Sea during Shell’s proposed coordinate with the Com Centers with the commissioners and committee exploration drilling activities. regarding all vessel transit. heads of AEWC, Alaska Beluga Whale Committee, the Nanuuq Commission, • Shell will employ local SAs from (4) ZVSP Eskimo Walrus Commission, and Ice the Chukchi Sea villages that are • Airgun arrays will be ramped up potentially impacted by Shell’s Seal Committee jointly in co- slowly during ZVSPs to warn cetaceans management meetings. Shell held exploration drilling activities. The SAs and pinnipeds in the vicinity of the will provide consultation and guidance individual consultation meetings with airguns and provide time for them to representatives from the various marine regarding the whale migration and leave the area and avoid potential injury subsistence activities. There will be one mammal commissions to discuss the or impairment of their hearing abilities. planned Chukchi exploration drilling per village, working approximately 8-hr Ramp ups from a cold start when no program. Following the drilling season, per day and 40-hr per week during each airguns have been firing will begin by Shell will have a post-season co- drilling season. The subsistence advisor firing a single airgun in the array. A management meeting with the will use local knowledge (Traditional ramp up to the required airgun array commissioners and committee heads to Knowledge) to gather data on volume will not begin until there has discuss results of mitigation measures subsistence lifestyle within the been a minimum of 30 min of and outcomes of the preceding season. community and provide advice on ways observation of the safety zone by PSOs The goal of the post-season meeting is to minimize and mitigate potential to assure that no marine mammals are to build upon the knowledge base, negative impacts to subsistence present. The safety zone is the extent of discuss successful or unsuccessful resources during each drilling season. the 180 dB radius for cetaceans and 190 outcomes of mitigation measures, and Responsibilities include reporting any dB re 1 mPa rms for pinnipeds. The possibly refine plans or mitigation subsistence concerns or conflicts; entire safety zone must be visible during measures if necessary. coordinating with subsistence users; the 30-min lead-into an array ramp up. Shell attended the 2012–2014 Conflict reporting subsistence-related comments, If a marine mammal(s) is sighted within Avoidance Agreement (CAA) concerns, and information; coordinating the safety zone during the 30-min watch negotiation meetings in support of with the Com and Call Center prior to ramp up, ramp up will be exploration drilling, offshore surveys, personnel; and advising how to avoid delayed until the marine mammal(s) is and future drilling plans. Shell will do subsistence conflicts. sighted outside of the safety zone or the the same for the upcoming 2015 (2) Aircraft Travel animal(s) is not sighted for at least 15– exploration drilling program. Shell • 30 min: 15 min for small odontocetes states that it is committed to a CAA Aircraft over land or sea shall not and pinnipeds, or 30 min for baleen process and will make a good-faith operate below 1,500 ft. (457 m) altitude whales and large odontocetes. effort to negotiate an agreement every unless engaged in marine mammal year it has planned activities. monitoring, approaching, landing or (5) Ice Management taking off, in poor weather (fog or low • Real time ice and weather Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis ceilings), or in an emergency situation. forecasting will be from SIWAC. and Preliminary Determination • Aircraft engaged in marine mammal NMFS considers that these mitigation monitoring shall not operate below (6) Oil Spill Response measures including measures to reduce 1,500 ft. (457 m) in areas of active • Pre-booming is required for all fuel overall impacts to marine mammals in whaling; such areas to be identified transfers between vessels. the vicinity of the proposed exploration through communications with the Com The potentially affected subsistence drilling area and measures to mitigate Centers. communities, identified in BOEM Lease any potential adverse effects on Sale, that were consulted regarding (3) Vessel Travel subsistence use of marine mammals are Shell’s exploration drilling activities adequate to ensure subsistence use of • The drilling unit(s) and support include: Barrow, Wainwright, Point Lay, marine mammals in the vicinity of vessels will enter the Chukchi Sea Point Hope, Kotzebue, and Deering. Shell’s proposed exploration drilling through the Bering Strait on or after 1 Additionally, Shell has met with program in the Chukchi Sea. July, minimizing effects on marine subsistence groups including the Alaska Based on the description of the mammals and birds that frequent open Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), specified activity, the measures leads and minimizing effects on spring Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope described to minimize adverse effects

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11772 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

on the availability of marine mammals porpoise; ringed seal; bearded seal; operationally practicable), to avoid the for subsistence purposes, and the spotted seal; and ribbon seal. likelihood of injury to whales; proposed mitigation and monitoring (3)(b) The taking by injury (Level A (d) Aircraft shall not fly within 1,000 measures, NMFS has preliminarily harassment), serious injury, or death of ft (305 m) of marine mammals or below determined that there will not be an any of the species listed in Condition 1,500 ft (457 m) altitude (except during unmitigable adverse impact on 3(a) or the taking of any kind of any takeoffs, landings, or in emergency subsistence uses from Shell’s proposed other species of marine mammal is situations) while over land or sea; activities. prohibited and may result in the (e) Utilize two, NMFS-approved, modification, suspension or revocation vessel-based Protected Species Endangered Species Act (ESA) of this Authorization. Observers (PSOs) (except during meal There are four marine mammal (4) The authorization for taking by times and restroom breaks, when at least species listed as endangered under the harassment is limited to the following one PSO shall be on watch) to visually ESA with confirmed or possible acoustic sources (or sources with watch for and monitor marine mammals occurrence in the proposed project area: comparable frequency and intensity) near the drilling units or support vessel The bowhead, humpback, and fin and from the following activities: during active drilling or airgun whales, and ringed seals. NMFS’ (a) a three-airgun array consisting of operations (from nautical twilight-dawn Permits and Conservation Division will three 150 in3 airguns, or a two-airgun to nautical twilight-dusk) and before initiate consultation with NMFS’ array consisting of two 250 in3 airguns; and during start-ups of airguns day or Endangered Species Division under (b) continuous drilling unit and night. The vessels’ crew shall also assist section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of associated dynamic positioning sounds in detecting marine mammals, when an IHA to Shell under section during active drilling operations; practicable. PSOs shall have access to 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this (c) vessel sounds generated during reticle binoculars (7x50 Fujinon), big- activity. Consultation will be concluded active ice management or icebreaking; eye binoculars (25x150), and night prior to a determination on the issuance (d) mudline cellar construction during vision devices. PSO shifts shall last no of an IHA. the exploration drilling program; longer than 4 consecutive hours and (e) anchor handling during the shall not be on watch more than 12 National Environmental Policy Act exploration drilling program, and hours in a 24-hour period. PSOs shall (NEPA) (f) aircraft associated with marine also make observations during daytime NMFS is preparing an Environmental mammal monitoring and support periods when active operations are not Assessment (EA), pursuant to NEPA, to operations, being conducted for comparison of (5) The taking of any marine mammal determine whether the issuance of an animal abundance and behavior, when in a manner prohibited under this IHA to Shell for its 2015 drilling feasible; Authorization must be reported activities may have a significant impact (f) When a mammal sighting is made, immediately to the Chief, Permits and on the human environment. NMFS has the following information about the Conservation Division, Office of released a draft of the EA for public sighting will be recorded by the PSOs: Protected Resources, NMFS or her comment along with this proposed IHA. (i) Species, group size, age/size/sex designee. categories (if determinable), behavior Proposed Authorization (6) The holder of this Authorization when first sighted and after initial must notify the Chief of the Permits and As a result of these preliminary sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing Conservation Division, Office of determinations, NMFS proposes to issue and distance from the PSO, apparent Protected Resources, at least 48 hours an IHA to Shell for conducting an reaction to activities (e.g., none, prior to the start of exploration drilling exploration drilling program in the avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.), activities (unless constrained by the Chukchi Sea during the 2015 Arctic closest point of approach, and date of issuance of this Authorization in open-water season, provided the behavioral pace; which case notification shall be made as previously mentioned mitigation, (ii) Time, location, speed, activity of soon as possible). the vessel, sea state, ice cover, visibility, monitoring, and reporting requirements (7) General Mitigation and Monitoring are incorporated. The proposed IHA and sun glare; and Requirements: The Holder of this (iii) The positions of other vessel(s) in language is provided next. Authorization is required to implement the vicinity of the PSO location. This section contains a draft of the the following mitigation and monitoring (iv) The ship’s position, speed of IHA itself. The wording contained in requirements when conducting the support vessels, and water temperature, this section is proposed for inclusion in specified activities to achieve the least water depth, sea state, ice cover, the IHA (if issued). practicable impact on affected marine visibility, and sun glare will also be (1) This Authorization is valid from mammal species or stocks: recorded at the start and end of each July 1, 2015, through October 31, 2015. (a) All vessels shall reduce speed to observation watch, every 30 minutes (2) This Authorization is valid only a maximum of 5 knots when within 900 during a watch, and whenever there is for activities associated with Shell’s ft (300 yards/274 m) of whales. Those a change in any of those variables. 2015 Chukchi Sea exploration drilling vessels capable of steering around such (g) PSO teams shall consist of Alaska program. The specific areas where groups should do so. Vessels may not be Native observers and experienced field Shell’s exploration drilling program will operated in such a way as to separate biologists. An experienced field crew be conducted are within Shell lease members of a group of whales from leader will supervise the PSO team holdings in the Outer Continental Shelf other members of the group; onboard the survey vessel. New Lease Sale 193 area in the Chukchi Sea. (b) Avoid multiple changes in observers shall be paired with (3)(a) The incidental taking of marine direction and speed when within 900 ft experienced observers to avoid mammals, by Level B harassment only, (300 yards/274 m) of whales; situations where lack of experience is limited to the following species: (c) When weather conditions require, impairs the quality of observations; bowhead whale; gray whale; beluga such as when visibility drops, support (h) PSOs will complete a two or three- whale; minke whale; fin whale; vessels must reduce speed and change day training session on marine mammal humpback whale; killer whale; harbor direction, as necessary (and as monitoring, to be conducted shortly

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11773

before the anticipated start of the 2015 radius is temporarily designated to be (d) Participate in the Com Center open-water season. The training 1.28 km and the 190 dB radius is Program. The Com Centers shall operate session(s) will be conducted by temporarily designated to be 255 m; 24 hours/day during the 2015 bowhead qualified marine mammalogists with (d) Implement a ‘‘ramp-up’’ procedure whale hunt; extensive crew-leader experience during when starting up at the beginning of (e) Employ local Subsistence Advisors previous vessel-based monitoring seismic operations. During ramp-up, the (SAs) from the Chukchi Sea villages to programs. A marine mammal observers’ PSOs shall monitor the EZ, and if provide consultation and guidance handbook, adapted for the specifics of marine mammals are sighted, a power- regarding the whale migration and the planned program, will be reviewed down, or shut-down shall be subsistence hunt; as part of the training; implemented as though the full array (f) Not operate aircraft below 1,500 ft (i) PSO training that is conducted were operational. Therefore, initiation (457 m) unless engaged in marine prior to the start of the survey activities of ramp-up procedures from shut-down mammal monitoring, approaching, shall be conducted with both Alaska requires that the PSOs be able to view landing or taking off, or unless engaged Native PSOs and biologist PSOs being the full EZ; in providing assistance to a whaler or in trained at the same time in the same (e) Power-down or shutdown the poor weather (low ceilings) or any other room. There shall not be separate airgun(s) if a marine mammal is emergency situations; training courses for the different PSOs; detected within, approaches, or enters (10) Monitoring Measures: and the relevant EZ. A shutdown means all (a) Vessel-based Monitoring: The (j) PSOs shall be trained using visual operating airguns are shutdown (i.e., Holder of this Authorization shall aids (e.g., videos, photos), to help them turned off). A power-down means designate biologically-trained PSOs to identify the species that they are likely reducing the number of operating be aboard the drilling units and all to encounter in the conditions under airguns to a single operating airgun, transiting support vessels. The PSOs are which the animals will likely be seen. which reduces the EZ to the degree that required to monitor for marine (8) ZVSP Mitigation and Monitoring the animal(s) is no longer in or about to mammals in order to implement the Measures: The Holder of this enter it; mitigation measures described in Authorization is required to implement (f) Following a power-down, if the conditions 7 and 8 above; the following mitigation and monitoring marine mammal approaches the smaller (b) Aerial Survey Monitoring: The requirements when conducting the designated EZ, the airguns must then be Holder of this Authorization must specified activities to achieve the least completely shutdown. Airgun activity implement the aerial survey monitoring practicable impact on affected marine shall not resume until the PSO has program detailed in its Marine Mammal mammal species or stocks: visually observed the marine mammal(s) Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (4MP); (a) PSOs shall conduct monitoring exiting the EZ and is not likely to and while the airgun array is being deployed return, or has not been seen within the (c) Acoustic Monitoring: or recovered from the water; EZ for 15 min for species with shorter (i) Field Source Verification: the (b) PSOs shall visually observe the dive durations (small odontocetes and Holder of this Authorization is required entire extent of the exclusion zone (EZ) pinnipeds) or 30 min for species with to conduct sound source verification (180 dB re 1 mPa [rms] for cetaceans and longer dive durations (mysticetes); tests for the drilling units, support 190 dB re 1 mPa [rms] for pinnipeds) (g) Following a power-down or shut- vessels, and the airgun array not using NMFS-qualified PSOs, for at least down and subsequent animal departure, measured in previous seasons. Sound 30 minutes (min) prior to starting the airgun operations may resume following source verification shall consist of airgun array (day or night). If the PSO ramp-up procedures described in distances where broadside and endfire finds a marine mammal within the EZ, Condition 8(d) above; directions at which broadband received Shell must delay the seismic survey (h) ZVSP surveys may continue into levels reach 190, 180, 170, 160, and 120 until the marine mammal(s) has left the night and low-light hours if such dB re 1 mPa (rms) for all active acoustic area. If the PSO sees a marine mammal segment(s) of the survey is initiated sources that may be used during the that surfaces then dives below the when the entire relevant EZs are visible activities. For the airgun array, the surface, the PSO shall continue the and can be effectively monitored; and configurations shall include at least the watch for 30 min. If the PSO sees no (i) No initiation of airgun array full array and the operation of a single marine mammals during that time, they operations is permitted from a source that will be used during power may assume that the animal has moved shutdown position at night or during downs. The test results for the airgun beyond the EZ. If for any reason the low-light hours (such as in dense fog or array shall be reported to NMFS within entire radius cannot be seen for the heavy rain) when the entire relevant EZ 5 days of completing the test. entire 30 min period (i.e., rough seas, cannot be effectively monitored by the A report of the acoustic verification fog, darkness), or if marine mammals are PSO(s) on duty. measurements of the ZVSP airgun array near, approaching, or in the EZ, the (9) Subsistence Mitigation Measures: will be submitted within 120 hr after airguns may not be ramped-up. If one To ensure no unmitigable adverse collection and analysis of those airgun is already running at a source impact on subsistence uses of marine measurements once that part of the level of at least 180 dB re 1 mPa (rms), mammals, the Holder of this program is implemented. The ZVSP the Holder of this Authorization may Authorization shall: acoustic array report will specify the start the second airgun without (b) Not enter the Bering Strait prior to distances of the exclusion zones that observing the entire EZ for 30 min prior, July 1 to minimize effects on spring and were adopted for the ZVSP program. provided no marine mammals are early summer whaling; Prior to completion of these known to be near the EZ; (c) Implement the Communication measurements, Shell will use the radii (c) Establish and monitor a 180 dB re Plan before initiating exploration in condition 8(c). 1 mPa (rms) and a 190 dB re 1 mPa (rms) drilling operations to coordinate (ii) Acoustic ‘‘Net’’ Array: Deploy EZ for marine mammals before the activities with local subsistence users acoustic recorders widely across the airgun array is in operation. Before the and Village Whaling Associations in U.S. Chukchi Sea and on the prospect field verification tests, described in order to minimize the risk of interfering in order to gain information on the condition 10(c)(i) below, the 180 dB with subsistence hunting activities; distribution of marine mammals in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 11774 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices

region. This program must be (vii) The report should clearly observations in the 24 hours preceding implemented as detailed in the 4MP. compare authorized takes to the level of the incident; (ix) species identification (11) Reporting Requirements: The actual estimated takes; or description of the animal(s) involved; Holder of this Authorization is required (viii) If, changes are made to the (x) the fate of the animal(s); (xi) and to: monitoring program after the photographs or video footage of the (a) Within 5 days of completing the independent monitoring plan peer animal (if equipment is available). sound source verification tests for the review, those changes must be detailed Activities shall not resume until airguns, the Holder shall submit a in the report. NMFS is able to review the preliminary report of the results to (c) The draft report will be subject to circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS. A report on the results of the review and comment by NMFS. Any NMFS shall work with Shell to acoustic verification measurements of recommendations made by NMFS must determine what is necessary to the drilling units and support vessels, be addressed in the final report prior to minimize the likelihood of further not recorded in previous seasons, will acceptance by NMFS. The draft report prohibited take and ensure MMPA be reported in the 90-day report. The will be considered the final report for compliance. Shell may not resume their report should report down to the 120-dB this activity under this Authorization if activities until notified by NMFS via radius in 10-dB increments; NMFS has not provided comments and letter, email, or telephone. (b) Submit a draft report on all recommendations within 90 days of (b) In the event that Shell discovers an activities and monitoring results to the receipt of the draft report. injured or dead marine mammal, and Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (d) A draft comprehensive report the lead PSO determines that the cause within 90 days of the completion of the describing the aerial, acoustic, and of the injury or death is unknown and exploration drilling program. This vessel-based monitoring programs will the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less report must contain and summarize the be prepared and submitted within 240 than a moderate state of decomposition following information: days of the date of this Authorization. as described in the next paragraph), (i) Summaries of monitoring effort The comprehensive report will describe Shell will immediately report the (e.g., total hours, total distances, and the methods, results, conclusions and incident to the Chief of the Permits and marine mammal distribution through limitations of each of the individual Conservation Division, Office of the study period, accounting for sea data sets in detail. The report will also Protected Resources, NMFS, by phone state and other factors affecting integrate (to the extent possible) the or email and the NMFS Alaska visibility and detectability of marine studies into a broad based assessment of Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the mammals); all industry activities and their impacts Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. (ii) Sound source verification results on marine mammals in the Arctic Ocean The report must include the same for drilling units and vessels recorded in during 2015. information identified in Condition 2015; (e) The draft comprehensive report 12(a) above. Activities may continue (iii) Analyses of the effects of various will be subject to review and comment while NMFS reviews the circumstances factors influencing detectability of by NMFS, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling of the incident. NMFS will work with marine mammals (e.g., sea state, number Commission, and the North Slope Shell to determine whether of observers, and fog/glare); Borough Department of Wildlife modifications in the activities are (iv) Species composition, occurrence, Management. The draft comprehensive appropriate. and distribution of marine mammal report will be accepted by NMFS as the (c) In the event that Shell discovers an sightings, including date, water depth, final comprehensive report upon injured or dead marine mammal, and numbers, age/size/gender categories (if incorporation of comments and the lead PSO determines that the injury determinable), group sizes, and ice recommendations. or death is not associated with or related cover; (12)(a) In the unanticipated event that to the activities authorized in Condition (v) Sighting rates of marine mammals the drilling program operation clearly 2 of this Authorization (e.g., previously during periods with and without causes the take of a marine mammal in wounded animal, carcass with moderate exploration drilling activities (and other a manner prohibited by this to advanced decomposition, or variables that could affect detectability), Authorization, such as an injury (Level scavenger damage), Shell shall report such as: (A) Initial sighting distances A harassment), serious injury or the incident to the Chief of the Permits versus drilling state; (B) closest point of mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear and Conservation Division, Office of approach versus drilling state; (C) interaction, and/or entanglement), Shell Protected Resources, NMFS, by phone observed behaviors and types of shall immediately cease operations and or email and the NMFS Alaska movements versus drilling state; (D) immediately report the incident to the Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the numbers of sightings/individuals seen Chief of the Permits and Conservation Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators, versus drilling state; (E) distribution Division, Office of Protected Resources, within 24 hours of the discovery. Shell around the survey vessel versus drilling NMFS, by phone or email and the shall provide photographs or video state; and (F) estimates of take by Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinators. footage (if available) or other harassment; The report must include the following documentation of the stranded animal (v) Reported results from all information: (i) Time, date, and location sighting to NMFS and the Marine hypothesis tests should include (latitude/longitude) of the incident; (ii) Mammal Stranding Network. Activities estimates of the associated statistical the name and type of vessel involved; may continue while NMFS reviews the power when practicable; (iii) the vessel’s speed during and circumstances of the incident. (vi) Estimate and report uncertainty in leading up to the incident; (iv) (13) Activities related to the all take estimates. Uncertainty could be description of the incident; (v) status of monitoring described in this expressed by the presentation of all sound source use in the 24 hours Authorization do not require a separate confidence limits, a minimum- preceding the incident; (vi) water depth; scientific research permit issued under maximum, posterior probability (vii) environmental conditions (e.g., section 104 of the Marine Mammal distribution, etc.; the exact approach wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea Protection Act. will be selected based on the sampling state, cloud cover, and visibility); (viii) (14) The Plan of Cooperation method and data available; description of marine mammal outlining the steps that will be taken to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Notices 11775

cooperate and communicate with the Authorization is subject to civil and authorization, and any other aspect of native communities to ensure the criminal penalties, permit sanctions, the Notice of Proposed IHA for Shell’s availability of marine mammals for and forfeiture as authorized under the 2015 Chukchi Sea exploratory drilling subsistence uses must be implemented. MMPA. program. Please include, with your (15) Shell is required to comply with (18) This Authorization may be comments, any supporting data or the Terms and Conditions of the modified, suspended or withdrawn if literature citations to help inform our Incidental Take Statement (ITS) the Holder fails to abide by the final decision on Shell’s request for an corresponding to NMFS’s Biological conditions prescribed herein or if the MMPA authorization. Opinion issued to NMFS’s Office of authorized taking is having more than a Protected Resources. negligible impact on the species or stock Dated: February 26, 2015. (16) A copy of this Authorization and of affected marine mammals, or if there Donna S. Wieting, the ITS must be in the possession of all is an unmitigable adverse impact on the Director, Office of Protected Resources, contractors and PSOs operating under availability of such species or stocks for National Marine Fisheries Service. the authority of this Incidental subsistence uses. [FR Doc. 2015–04427 Filed 3–3–15; 8:45 am] Harassment Authorization. (17) Penalties and Permit Sanctions: Request for Public Comment BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Any person who violates any provision As noted above, NMFS requests of this Incidental Harassment comment on our analysis, the draft

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04MRN2.SGM 04MRN2 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES